It's a combination of a journalist simplifying the report, and climate science conventions.

If you read the report it does explain all this.

Sure, if by "actively" you mean "with the aid of guillotines".

Most people can't afford to move even if they have a job. They're spending all their money just to have a roof over their head.

There was more manufacturing in red states, how did blue states export pollution to China? More of the big polluters were incorporated in red states, how did blue states export pollution to China? Most of the jobs left during republican administrations, and to the extent that any of them have come back, it has been under democrat administrations, how did red states export pollution to China?

The truth is that democrats and republicans (or blues and reds if you like) have been largely united in offshoring manufacturing, but to the extent that there is a difference, it has been more red than blue. You are absolutely lying.

Will it be good for anyone to create another cold-war style divide? Or are you just hoping that if the US can replicate China's supply chains and R&D investment levels, people will just switch to buying US stuff without the need for any enforcement like sanctions?

We have had this for years in the UK. Breakdown services will come out and give you a kilowatt or two, just enough to limp to the nearest rapid charger. The batteries aren't huge.

It's almost impossible to run out of charge in an EV without being some kind of idiot, because they all warn you multiple times and in increasingly loud and attention grabbing ways. Most have a sat nav that will find a charger and tell if you if have the range to get it to as well.

The only exceptions are due to failures (car or charger), or Teslas were they display some made up range number based on an ideal level of energy consumption that doesn't match real-world conditions.

I can't see it being used on any kind of permanent basis. Maybe for events out in the middle of nowhere.

The major difference is that China is not simply stealing the technology like East Germany tried to, they are developing it themselves. There is a massive amount of hiring going on for IC fabrication at the moment, both for Chinese citizens with the necessary skills and foreigners (particularly Taiwanese) who have experience with high end processes.

If we keep assuming China will always fail because all they can do is make inferior copies, WE will keep losing. Like we did with Huawei, and EV batteries, and a load of other stuff. In fact we kinda did with chip fabrication too, or at least the US did by assuming that export restrictions would slow Chinese development down. The basic premise was flawed.

We just need to accept that the only way to compete is to, you know, compete. Throw money at R&D.

I'd be more impressed if they supported .ODF documents.

Don't you have rules against unfair contracts? In the UK we have various requirements, like the contract needing to be fair and reasonably understandable to an average adult. We also have things like the "red hand rule" where any particularly egregious terms need to be highlighted or they can't be enforced.

It may be deliberate, to prevent other nations recovering debris for analysis. The goal is to have failed launches self destruct into parts too small to be of much use for intel, or be too dangerous to recover.

It's actually quite worrying and impressive how far NK technology has come. They have ICBMs that can hit almost anywhere on the planet, and some are thought to have MIRV capability (multiple independent re-entry vehicle, basically several nuclear warheads on a single ICBM that can be targeted independently). They have submarine launched ballistic missiles too, although the subs are diesel powered so not on the level of European and US deterrents because they are easier to track than nuclear powered ones, and can't stay submerged for extended periods.

A lot of this seems to be home-grown too. While older rockets were based off imported models, they seem to have replaced most of that technology with their own. That suggests that successive leaders have been smart enough to be tolerant of failures and see working towards success as a long term goal.

Why should we care if the creator is punished? It's not our job to make sure they make money. All we want is the content.

Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss

It's not at all surprising that Google would be being peevish about adblocking, given basically their entire business model; but it seems weird that they'd be going with behavior that isn't readily distinguishable from a technical glitch, especially to a nontechnical user.

The actually-paying-attention will find it pretty easy to compare behavior with and without an adblocker enabled, even if they have no ability to dig any deeper, so it's not like obfuscation hides anything from the people they need to worry about; but it is going to ensure that a bunch of the relatively clueless, along with people who are using devices configured by someone else or operating on networks where they have no idea what the network admin is blocking are just going to see that Youtube's audio controls are really glitchy, or that playback is bugging out and assume that it's a youtube problem.

It's not well phrased in TFA, but what it means is that there is a 40-50% chance that temperatures will be above the average band for those areas, which can be a problem because buildings are not adapted for them and people may be unprepared for dangerous levels of heat.

It's not a single temperature that is the average, it's the band of temperatures experienced during those months at different times of the day. It doesn't imply that there is a 50-60% chance of it being below that band either, because the histogram of temperatures in the band isn't evenly distributed or equally likely to happen.

The main way you watch channels you are subscribed to is via the subscribed tab. The "recommended" videos include ones from subscribed channels. The "for you" section seems to exclude subscribed channels, because it's a way to discover new content that is outside your normal viewing habits.

The main issue is that YouTube does not make this at all clear to the user.

Just going by the above post they are completely right. Capitalism is in fact not good at the singular point they mention.

It's funny because he does or says none of those things in the post you're responding to.