The general dearth of atmosphere, is the main thing that would be holding Mars back from having any really substantial weather phenomena, including lightning like we see on Earth. But apparently there is just about enough atmosphere to support... this version of it.

Rare earths are not rare. However, processing rare earths are very polluting. By buying these materials from China, Europe doesn't need this polluting industry within it's borders. China can pollute itself for Europe's benefit.

If Europe doesn't want to deal with China, then it either needs to find another source or start processing rare earths within it's own territory and deal with the pollution itself.

Certainly it could orbit the earth, but the orbit could easily pass through the earth since it does not interact. The reduced gravity from earth while it is below the surface will mean the orbit wonâ(TM)t be an ellipse and i think it would be unstable.

Why do these people even bother to make up bullshit excuses for taking our money? Leave the "AI" part out and just announce that you're writing yourself a few checks at the taxpayers' expense.

Take what you want. Take it all! Just stop lying about it. It's not like you're fooling us anyway.

I'm doing my part! (Every time I see a window and a conveniently-nearby rock, I throw the rock at the window.)

I thought there was an explanation that Theia formed in the same orbit as Earth, each at a Trojan point with the other. This is unstable and eventually they crashed into each other. Is this now considered impossible?

In the markets, if enough people believe in the correlation then it magically becomes a causation.

Here is an interesting Wikipedia article that might lend another perspective on this discussion of semantics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

When in doubt, you can always refer to legal definitions and how different jurisdictions treat this issue in their legal systems. I have not heard anyone dispute the legitimacy of anyone who is officially licensed or registered in their jurisdiction, especially seeing how clearly defined the licensing/registration process is in those places that observe one. Of course, this is not to devalue the capabilities or education of someone who is not registered or licensed but it's clear that these people fall into more of a grey area, not regulated, which becomes subjective and I suppose this is the question underlying this discussion.

As to whether using the title is wrong, I would say anyone holding themselves out as a Professional, licensed or registered engineer when they are not, is out of bounds and probably even breaking the law. For everyone else, we're in the grey area.

Toward the bottom of there is an paragraph under "United States" that discusses legal protection of the term "professional engineer" and an industrial exemption for people to be called engineers under certain circumstances where their work is internal to a business entity that qualifies as an "exempt organization" and some tests for direct supervision are met. I think this might be where you see creative "engineer" titles arising.

Interesting that Wyoming would be the first state in the US to adopt licensing requirements because I would have thought of Wyoming to be less receptive to regulation than say New York or Massachusetts.

So am I an engineer? If licensed or registered - unequivocally yes. If not - maybe. Depends on circumstances.

Here is an interesting Wikipedia article that might lend another perspective on this discussion of semantics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

When in doubt, you can always refer to legal definitions and how different jurisdictions treat this issue in their legal systems. I have not heard anyone dispute the legitimacy of anyone who is officially licensed or registered in their jurisdiction, especially seeing how clearly defined the licensing/registration process is in those places that observe one. Of course, this is not to devalue the capabilities or education of someone who is not registered or licensed but it's clear that these people fall into more of a grey area, not regulated, which becomes subjective and I suppose this is the question underlying this discussion.

As to whether using the title is wrong, I would say anyone holding themselves out as a Professional, licensed or registered engineer when they are not, is out of bounds and probably even breaking the law. For everyone else, we're in the grey area.

Toward the bottom of there is an paragraph under "United States" that discusses legal protection of the term "professional engineer" and an industrial exemption for people to be called engineers under certain circumstances where their work is internal to a business entity that qualifies as an "exempt organization" and some tests for direct supervision are met. I think this might be where you see creative "engineer" titles arising.

Interesting that Wyoming would be the first state in the US to adopt licensing requirements because I would have thought of Wyoming to be less receptive to regulation than say New York or Massachusetts.

So am I an engineer? If licensed or registered - unequivocally yes. If not - maybe. Depends on circumstances.

2024 was when employers started implementing return to office across the entire economy. They also started pushing AI everywhere. And, they continued layoffs that started in 2023. Of course this made employees worse off.

The only objective measure of student performance that can't easily be cheated are standardized tests. Universities need to bring back the SAT or ACT. Schools need to limit admissions to those students with the top grades. Right now, it's far too easy to cheat the system and bring in students who can't do the work while denying good students who can do the work and refuse to cheat.

Colleges can collect ACT/SAT scores, high school grades, recommendations, and essays. We've seen grade inflation over the past few decades where students can all easily get A's regardless of whether they actually deserve them or not. Students can easily cheat on recommendations and essays. The only objective measure of a student that's not easily cheated are the ACT or SAT. Removing those requirements means that universities have exposed themselves to students interested in cheating their way into college. The result are universities accepting a group of mediocre students who can't do the work and denying good students who can do the work and refuse to cheat.

There are legit reasons for sending battery data to a remote location. If a fire occurs you're going to want to know what led up to it, and information is often destroyed in the event of a fire.

...officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed to state health departments that the ongoing measles outbreak at the border of Arizona and Utah is a continuation of the explosive outbreak in West Texas...

Why are there still competent people at CDC who are able to do this? Anyone who knows anything about anything, was supposed to have been fired months ago and replaced by incompetent flunkies.

Commander Putin's orders have been very clear about completely disarming all American capability, whether it's in our health systems, military, or infrastructure. Who is the pro-American traitor in our midst, disobeying orders to destroy the USA?

If we're going to disobey Putin's orders, then won't he kill or embarrass our president? That must not be allowed to happen!!

Not a big fan of this, but I'm pretty certain they need that money to actually replace all the working parts of the reactor. Only the concrete shell will be reused. They could probably use the same amount of money to fix reactor 2 the same way, they are just not touching it because of history.