Don't overlook the potential dangers.

We should be concerned about satellite collisions, perhaps between satellites from different companies or countries, and fear large-scale destruction involving many satellites.
There could be chain reactions of collisions.
There is already space debris tracked from previous collisions.
And then potential satellite debris falling to the ground, not mention the job of retiring satellites and the graveyard orbit.

And one should mention the potential consequences for, among other things, wind speed, the ozone layer, and the release of toxic substances.

Sea levels have varied greatly throughout history.
About 128,000 years ago they were 5-10 meters higher, when temperatures were only 0.5-1.5 degrees warmer than before pre-industrialization (1850-1900).
But sea levels were 125-134 meters lower than today's value about 20,000 years ago, when it was 5-7 degrees Celsius colder.
Then levels rose due to melting ice and the expansion of warm water.

You should consider the consequences for 110 million people living below sea level, and 10% of the world's population that lives near the sea, and take into account that rising sea levels affect freshwater, agriculture, and ecosystems.

A company won a contract for hopping drones. No propellers I think.

For mail why not just POP to download copies, and automatically remove all email older than a certain time?

Well there is also the Rankine scale, which is the zero-based equivalent to the Fahrenheit scale with water freezing at 491.67. Perhaps for cool Americans?

The term Celsius comes from the Swedish scientist Anders Celsius who set the freezing point at 100 and the boiling point at 0.
One year later the French scientist Cristin reversed that and called the scale centigrade, because the scale was divided in 100 parts, with centi for standing for one hundredth.
Celsius and centigrade are the same, and for some time both terms were used, but in the mid-20th century Celsius was adopted as the standard name.

Currently there is a diverse range of sources – coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, and biofuels. Hydro and nuclear give most of the low-carbon energy, but wind and solar are growing.

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact. A fact is an observation, where a theory connects and explains multiple observations. Theories make testable and verifiable predictions.

I'm ending this discussion now.

I have just listened to another possible theory from a specialist. But there was nothing wrong with what I wrote, which is the current general opinion.

Age limits for social media are being discussed and have been proposed or implemented in 17 European countries, the EU, Canada, the US, 3 countries in Latin America, 4 in Africa and 9 in Asia. Age limits vary slightly but are usually 15 or 16, and then there is the question of how to define social media.

You can also look at the cumulative carbon dioxide emissions since 1750 until 2024. Then Europe is the worst offender with 30%, followed by the US with 23.5%, the EU 16%, China 15% and the UK 4%. But perhaps Asia should be on the list with 34%.

Anyway, if you look at the curves over time, the noticeable growth since 2000 is for China and Asia.

Are you okay?

How is it wrong?
There has been some discussion lately, and the entire process of fructose and glucose metabolism is complex.
The common belief that fructose is mostly absorbed by the liver has been challenged and it has been suggested that the small intestine plays a major role.
Is that what you are thinking of?

Your are right, via the bloodstream, and not very clear on my part.
Glucose is the body's primary energy source and most tissue can break it down with the help of insulin.
While for fructos insulin is not involved, just the liver (and kidneys i think) processes it.
Clearer perhaps?

correction2:
s/mussels/muscles
I'll shut up now. :(