Was this reply meant for me? I think maybe you meant to reply to someone else.

Just keep on pretending. Why do you even bother. No-one not in your propaganda bubble will believe you. We all know that this is all just pathetic excuses for Russian imperial expansionism.

Proven for a whole 40 years on the site of nuclear power plants. Not really an impressive record compared to what we're talking about here. Basically you're talking about plans to manage things for hundreds of years or more that pretty much require ephemeral entities like corporations to continuously exist to take care of them. This is the same bad plan that has been used for all kinds of non-nuclear toxic waste forever. How many times have we heard stories about holding ponds for mining companies and other industrial interests that were supposed to be kept isolated from the water table and streams and rivers for centuries being completely ignored the second that the corporations that created them stopped being profitable and evaporated, leaving behind absolutely nothing to face any sort of liability ending up polluting people's drinking water and wildlife? Or, for that matter, just bursting a dam and flooding tens of thousands of acres with toxic heavy metals and the like?

Once again, the nuclear waste problem is such a drop in the bucket compared to other forms of pollution that it's barely worth discussing. The nuclear waste problem is not really a big deal compared to the other issues with nuclear power plants. Nevertheless, I'm still not going to ignore handwaving excuses for the kind of brain-dead waste management plans that just hand-wave away the problem of perpetual care. Like we're seeing in Ukraine right now, nuclear power plants are basically reliant on active care to not automatically become disaster areas. That is not exactly a ringing endorsment for nuclear power.

It's only reasonable for you to add a disclaimer to your post that what you are saying only applies outside of the body. Plenty of that stuff is very nasty due to radiation if it ends up in the human body. Especially the more bio-available stuff. Then there's also the fact that, even if it were not radioactive, plenty of it is chemically toxic, even without the radioactivity. That's not to say that there's massive amounts of it compared to other toxic stuff that can end up in the environment. However, we do tend to require that any industry that produces polluting, toxic byproducts to have a viable plan to deal with them. Of course, as we can see with many industry, there are very often failures to meet those requirements. Still, there's no special reason to give the nuclear industry a magical pass on those requirements.

What a load. That is simply not how diplomacy or government really work and you know it. Non-binding schmoozing by diplomats is just that and nothing more. You're basically calling the Russians either liars or morons or both.

Then you're a liar or a moron as well.

You are so ridiculously full of it. So, to be clear, Denis Pushelin, a card carrying member of the United Russia party, with a government full of Russian politicians from the independent Republic of Donetsk and Leonid Pasechnik from the independent Republic of Luhansk, also a card carrying member of the United Russia party, just begged for help from their completely neutral neighbor Russia to defend them from the wicked Ukrainians? Those completely independent leaders of completely independent Republics who totally, totally were not installed by Russia just needed help? Sorry, but that garbage doesn't play so well in places where people can get information from places other than Russian state TV and the walled-off Russian corner of the Internet.

So, in other words, your first sentence is false and it is, in fact not true since the rest of that paragraph makes it clear that there was no promise from NATO. For there to be a promise from NATO, it would have to be more than just some blather from some diplomats for just one of the countries in NATO. A few diplomats do not actually get to make official binding promises for their countries. They talk and they can develop agreements, but those agreements then have to be made official by official acts at multiple levels in the government of their country. For multi-nation organizations like NATO, there is then a framework for the multiple members of the organization to make formal statements, etc.

The rest of your ridiculous contortions are just yet more Russian propaganda. The dumbest thing about it is that, even if it weren't full of misrepresentations, absolutely none of it would justify Russia's invasion, yet you're still trying.

Then you'll have no problem pointing directly to that evidence that comes as some sort of official statement from the NATO organization itself or a joint statement of all of its members. I ask because it looks like you missed a perfect opportunity to do so in your original post.

Why do you think that? If you're serious, that's a very odd thing to believe.

I didn't really go into the amperage of the circuit, just the voltage since it didn't seem like it really had to be a whole thing. As another poster pointed out though, in a kitchen, you're typically going to have 16 Amp circuits in the Europe these days, just like kitchens in the US should ideally have 20 amp circuits in kitchens. From my experience of Europe and the US though, more European houses seem to have updated electrical than US homes. That might just be my impression though. For new homes in either region, you should expect 20 Amp in the US and 16 Amp in kitchen outlets. So that's considerably more power available typically in Europe. Also, I think 6 amp electrical outlets are pretty rare in Europe these days.

Of course, as far as electric kettles go, you're right that a well designed electric kettle should work well enough in the US. So, it could be more a cultural thing. Of course, it could be typical US reluctance to design things well. I'm not entirely joking when I note that the US seems to almost have a grudge against the concept of efficiency in designing things. I am thinking, for example, of things like water-efficient toilets. The typical approach taken in the US for many years as far as I could see was to simply ignore anything resembling engineering principles and just take an existing toilet design and give it a smaller tank while rejecting ideas like having buttons with two flush levels, etc. Of course, the idea that it's because of some sort of cultural attitude might be wrong. It occurs to me that maybe intellectual property law is to blame. Maybe there were actually patents on the various methods of making water-efficient toilets actually work well and no-one wanted to pay to license the patents. Maybe the same thing was an issue for things like electric kettles. I would not be surprised if he insane patent regime would grant patents for brain-dead simple ideas like putting the heating elements in the water itself so that half the heat isn't wasted, etc.

So, I guess in the end it's not clear why electric kettles never really caught on in the US.

Political partisan bias has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that often " when you click through to the linked reference page, you often find information that directly contradicts what the AI summary is telling you." That happens because the AI has no real understanding of the material and does not understand what the reference material is actually saying.

You mean like Mecha Hitler?

Even if and when that actually happens, that is still a failing of the AI. I don't know if you've noticed this, but Wikipedia entries tend to have extensive citations. A standard part of an academic citation of a source that might change, such as a web page, is to note when the page was accessed. Wikipedia pages have extensive records of edits and you can find out what the page was actually like when accessed on a particular day. Current LLMs do not produce anything remotely resembling proper citations.

It is different in the US because US homes use half the voltage so the same volume of water can be heated a lot faster with European residential current. There may be other cultural reasons as well, but electric kettles are simply more convenient in Europe.

It looks like it may be more than just this. I think one problem is that the summary and TFA seem to be generalizing about all PHEVs. I don't know if the actual report does. The problem seems to be that many PHEVs sound like they are greenwashing to a certain degree. The idea they promote is that the vehicle functions like a BEV while it has battery charge and like a hybrid the rest of the time but, really, it uses the combustion engine a significant portion of the time even when it is supposed to act like a BEV because the EV parts of it are too low spec and can't actually keep up with driving conditions. This is a problem with a lot of hybrids in general. The electric components are token electric.

So, basically many drivers end up with a PHEV that, whether they keep it charged or not, can not act like a BEV. Even with an unlimited source of electricity, it would not be able to hold up to normal driving conditions without the ICE engine. So it seems like a lot of them may really be scams intended to deceive customers into thinking their vehicle is something that it is not. There may be some PHEVs that function as customers expect, but not enough of them.

As another poster pointed out, the iPod put Apple products in many, many pockets before the iPhone. Either way though this is still conflating business success with innovation. What was the actual innovation that can be attributed to Jobs? Certainly not digital music players or smartphones. Both of those pre-dated Apple's versions (even if they had not, why would Jobs get the innovation credit for them?). You used the word "brand" in two of your three sentences, so clearly you understand that his success was in getting people to buy the Apple-branded version of products rather in actually innovating something new.