Since communism is, by definition, classless, you cannot both be classist and communist.

Racism is, again by definition, incompatible with abstraction.

My conclusion is that you're pretty shaky on definitions.

Germany is now buying American natural gas that was previously flared and wasted. This is a great benefit to both Germany and the world, as Russian natural gas stays in the ground where it belongs, depriving butcher Putin of the funds he needs to continue his war of aggression in Ukraine. American natural gas is more expensive to move over the ocean but the good news is that Germany runs a massive trade surplus with the USA and can easily afford it. It moves the needle towards where it should be, in the middle, making trade equally beneficial to both sides. Adam Smith would be proud.

Reminds me of the last two panels of this XKCD. Our rights are only being violated half as much. Yay, I guess? Strictly speaking, it's better than the alternative, and yet someone is clearly doing their job horribly wrong.

They'd disclosed it but the first one hadn't finished testifying under oath about it. And that matters. The latter has status as evidence in court.

Sure, put AM radio back in EVs. That's trivial. But then the question is how horrible is the reception without adding more shielding? Does the law specify any quality requirements? I would infer from the summary that the law doesn't say, but it would be up to the NHTSA to create regulations, so they would probably set some quality standards.

I know my 2015 Model S has AM, and it's fine, but my 2019 Model 3 does not have it. And if I upgrade the media computer in the Model S, I lose AM. But I also know I've never missed AM in the Model 3, and we haven't used it in the Model S in years (as baseball games moved from AM to FM at least in our area).

Given that you're talking about cars in a conversation about ships, you may want to rethink tossing around words like gibberish. Crawl back under your bridge, troll.

Mashing Ctrl-C like a maniac during the boot cycle would do it.

I also got a TI-99/4A as my first machine. Fun story about "on the path:" Texas Instruments actually made a bunch of those machines in Johnson City, TN. I moved there in the late 90s and got a job working for Siemens, who had bought the industrial automation division of TI a few years prior, which included the Johnson City plant. I had a desk in a lab in a large electronics manufacturing space that was repurposed as a cube farm and was privileged enough to work with some amazing people, a few legit graybeards and a bunch of old school EE types. In passing, one of them gave me a history lesson about the plant and what they had done there in the past.

It turned out that my desk at my first "real" IT job was fifteen feet from where my first computer was made.

Coincidentally, and not as happy a memory, my mother came down to visit me at Christmas that year, and I showed her my office between Christmas and New Years when almost no one was in the office. She took a picture of me at my desk, and that picture hung in her home ever since. She just passed away last December, twenty five years to the day after that picture was taken.

I was as bored as you were in the stores, and used to go to all the display PCs and add "ctty null" to their autoexec.bat files.

You forgot to multiply that 75% by the efficiency of the generator...

So, first: explanation of why coal produces more CO2 when burned than oil or gas. The short version is, "because coal has more carbon in it."

Next, comparison of efficiency of different types of fossil power. The charts you want are on pages 13 and 15. The data is pretty noisy because it's by country generating, but coal and oil are roughly the same efficiency if you remove the outlier datapoints.

The rest of my post is inferences drawn from those two metrics. You're welcome to dispute those inferences instead of dismissing my comment as nonsense. Ass.

Are you sure about that?

Oil and coal have roughly the same efficiency for power generation, but coal produces more CO2 per ton than oil. That suggests you could put a generator on the ship to charge the batteries (burning bunker fuel) and have "lower lifetime emissions" than charging the ship from a coal power plant. Of course, instead of generating electric power with that bunker fuel, you could use it to turn the propeller shafts directly at even higher efficiency, so...

I haven't done the math, but unless the assumptions above are incorrect I would say you'd lose that bet.

I started doing the same after our local newspaper tripled its price, required you call in to cancel, and after waiting on hold forever, dropped the call when I said I wanted to cancel. They did allow me to "update my payment information" online, so I switched to a virtual card with a short expiration date and problem solved.

It's true that the House of Representatives will not ratify this treaty. It's also true that the House will not ratify any treaties, because it is not part of the ratification process.

Again, you show a shocking lack of understanding about the treaty process. 50 + vice presidential tiebreak doesn't get you there, treaties in the US are ratified by a supermajority vote in the senate--you need 67 in favor (though, I suppose, under the right circumstances you could do it with as few as 35 votes in favor, i.e. if you convinced 49 senators to not show up that day you'd still have a quorum and the constitution specifies "two thirds of those present").