Informative, though it still doesn't give me any faith that people could safely fill their own vehicles (or even rely on a high school kid to do so). You're going to need a responsible employee with some specific training.

Frankly, you've swallowed a fair amount of BS yourself.

They 'evacuated' because it wasn't really part of their vision of Biblical Israel, and it helped split the Palestinian Authority.

They're just removing ethnic Palestinians from their communities in the West Bank (not to mention some literal talk of ethnically cleansing Gaza from Israeli Ministers.

Hamas are definitely bad guys, but that's pretty much what any force does when fighting against a much stronger enemy.

Not anymore, though they might again soon.

Hence the folks complaining about an "open air prison".

You kinda are.

Now to be clear, if you look at things from the Israeli perspective the narrative isn't that bad. Jews were brutally persecuted everywhere they went, they were given a chance to relocate to their ancestral homeland, and they took that opportunity.

The problem is, if you look at things from the Palestinian perspective the narrative isn't that bad either. Palestinians were living as the majority as they had for almost 2000 years, having been promised self-rule for rebelling against the Turks in WWI. Instead Britain allowed a bunch of Jews to immigrate, buy land, and eventually gave them a big chunk of the country. When they fought back the new Jewish state took even more land and at this point seems very determined to eventualy take the whole of Mandatory Palestine.

Yeah, there's a bunch of legitimate grievances on both sides, but the underlying problem is that Western powers screwed up in early 1900s, started giving Jews a claim to someone elses land, and created a situation that is very difficult to deescalate.

True, though it also suggests that the technology is fairly complicated. Traditional gas stations don't have the requirement that you store the gas in ultra-low temperatures. Not only does that create more complicated storage requirements but more complicated mechanism to deal with that temperature gradient when refuelling.

Sure, it probably gets more reliable as the tech improves, but it definitely sounds like there's a safety issue that will require skilled personnel on an ongoing basis.

Fiction:

12 books from the Deverry series
The Three Body Problem trilogy
Monkey
Treacle Walker
Various books on Powershell

Non-Fiction:
Linux Administrator's Guide
Linux Network Administrator's Guide
Both OpenZFS books
Ansible
Terraform
Various books on Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL optimisation
C++ manuals
Various Cisco manuals
OpenPF manual

The difference is that a gas station requires a massive capital investment to build. An EV charging stand just needs the same electricity as any other business. In the long term it might be efficient for the market to produce an excess of charging stations.

The models have errors and uncertainties, including about when we might hit various tipping points.

The fear is that the "alarmists" were wrong, and the climate is warming faster than they thought.

Atmospheric CO2 takes a very long time to drop (and we're still adding more) and when pollution dropped more sunlight got through and raised temps slightly.

Sorry if that's too complicated for you.

Don't worry, the average intelligence jumped way up after you dropped.

The prof was assuming you were smart enough to understand that everyone would know the sun warms the earth.

He was saying that sun's output was constant enough to have no effect.

I hope you can take some solace in the fact that the average person is still apparently much smarter than you.

The world is full of folks with impressive credentials, it's inevitable a few of them will dive headfirst into crackpot theories for a variety of reasons.

Not to say this guy is a crackpot, but what he's claiming should be pretty easy to demonstrate to credible outside experts. That he hasn't done that rings many alarm bells.

I'm baffled by people who insist on taking statements completely literally when it's obvious that's not what the speaker meant. Especially when the person in question actually explains what the statement means!

"What if the statistical connections that we are basing our predictions on are no longer valid?"

ie, the scientist who obviously understands that nature changes, is worried because this current change isn't really predicted by current models. If the warming keeps up that means the models are wrong in the way we really don't want them to be wrong and that's bad news.

California has level 4 taxis (which have had problems) but few (if any) level 3 consumer cars. So I'm not sure what data you think BC should be using.

You really need folks to spell out the concerns with untested level 3 cars?

For someone complaining about data it seems to have eluded you that level 3 vehicles are so new that they haven't even made it to the Canadian market.

It means common sense. Before deploying level 3 cars on public roads they want more data.

When reasonable people have a reasonable expectation that the new product may be more dangerous and they don't want to wait for a bunch of fatalities to occur to stop it.

I'm not sure your intuition is correct. Sure the supply of work isn't infinite but it does increase when productivity goes up.

Look at a website designer, in the early 90s you were writing HTML and CSS by hand, drawing icons with crappy editors, etc, etc.

Now, you've got crazy libraries and full-fledged website builders, I'm guessing a modern web designer is MUCH more productive.

The result? There's waaay more website designer jobs out there, that's partially because the Internet is bigger, but also because you get way more value for your cash buying a website designer now.

Some of the same will be happening with software dev. Sure, some companies that doesn't see any need to do more than they're currently doing may cut staff, but a lot of other companies will realize that the software project/product they were thinking of is now viable.

The conservation laws are statistical, at least to a degree. Local apparent violations can be OK, provided the system as a whole absolutely complies.

There's no question that if the claim was as appears that the conservation laws would be violated system-wide, which is a big no-no.

So we need to look for alternative explanations.

The most obvious one is that the results aren't being honestly presented, that there's so much wishful thinking that the researchers are forcing the facts to fit their theory. (A tendency so well known, that it's even been used as the basis for fictional detectives.)

Never trust results that are issued in a PR statement before a paper. But these days, it's increasingly concerning that you can't trust the journals.

The next possibility is an unconsidered source of propulsion. At the top of the atmosphere, there are a few candidates, but whether they'd impart enough energy is unclear to me.

The third possibility is that the rocket imparted more energy than considered, so the initial velocity was incorrectly given.

The fourth possibility is that Earth's gravity (which is non-uniform) is lower than given in the calculations, so the acceleration calculations are off.

When dealing with tiny quantities that can be swamped by experimental error, then you need to determine if it has been. At least, after you've determined there's a quantity to examine.

I'm guessing that folks using the US flag as an accessory are generally pushing a fairly specific political belief.

I'm in Canada and a bunch of a-hole truckers and their followers blockaded the Capital and border crossings to try and blackmail the rest of the country. And of course they flew Canadian flags everywhere to pretend like they were being patriotic.

I love my country and my flag, but if I see some truck driving around with a Canadian flag I know it's probably some Fox-News watching Trump fanboy who was trying to extort the rest of the country which is pretty damn un-Canadian to me.

And they were right of course! (well kinda right anyway)

The real divide was the former Confederacy vs the rest of the country. Because the South was Democratic there were a lot more D in opposition than R.

But it was a Democratic President who pushed it. But if you look among legislators in the former Confederacy, Republicans were more likely to oppose it. And similarly outside, Republicans were more likely to oppose it.

So saying Republicans were more opposed isn't really wrong.

That feels more like trivia, particularly considering the different populations at the time.

To be fair, economists struggle with that too.

Not entirely wrong. Not that the Jews sitting around in post-WWII refugee camps had many other good options.

From the local's perspective, they kinda were invaders.

So they were right I guess.

At that point they're probably just screwing with you.

Just curious, do you think the COVID vaccine saved lives? Do you believe in AGW? Do you think Trump won in 2020?

Because I can find a lot of people on the right who espouse some pretty nutty beliefs on those topics, and they aren't the equivalent of the kids skateboarding, they're literally the leaders of the GOP and the associated media outlets.

It's fairly well established that he had contract offers contingent on him ceasing his protest, so yeah, he clearly demonstrated that he was willing to sacrifice a significant portion of his career earnings for his protest.

He did well with Nike, possibly better than he would have done never having protested though NFL QB salaries are pretty good so it's hard to say.

But it's pretty ridiculous to assume he anticipated a huge endorsement deal when he started his protest.

It's fine to disagree with his protest.

But pretending that he wasn't willing to sacrifice a lot? That's pretty disgusting.

You know those idiots who stormed the US Capitol on Jan 6th? They were far right fascists who were trying to overthrow the US Democracy and murder the Vice President and they deserve long prison sentences.

But I won't deny they were willing to risk a lot for their insurrection.