I would suggest using the Wayback Machine at archive.org, which is fine if you want to see what a Web site looked like on a particular date. But I haven't been able to find any way to search for content within a saved Web site. The "Help" for Search seems to be out of date and badly out of touch with reality. Based on what's listed under "Collection search", you can search a few dozen information sources, but not general Web sites. Maybe you can figure it out.

Luckily, there's a sophisticated mathematical operation to do this conversion. Informally, it's called "subtract one".

Watching or participating?

Total energy consumption increased, of course, as it almost always does (there were slight dips in 2009 and 2020).

Over the five years from 2019 to 2024, worldwide total nuclear primary energy production decreased slightly, from 6920 TWh to 6872 TWh, ending at about 3.69% of total worldwide primary energy production.

Percentages are relatively easy to understand, and if the goal is to reduce the use of fossil fuel, given that total consumption always increases, the percentage of energy production from fossil fuels will have to decrease. Which is not happening: the green energy sources barely keep up with increased demand.

Global warming also doesn't "care" about whether fossil fuels are used to generate electricity or burned for some other purpose, but Elektrek and Ember only report on electricity.

In 2024, over 75% of all primary energy consumption was provided by natural gas, oil, and coal. (41,278 TWh + 55,2392 TWh + 45,851 TWh / total 186,383 TWh). Solar and wind together provided 11,275 TWh, or 6.0% of the total.

531 TWh represents 0.28% (1/300) of total energy (not electricity) production.

Good question, but as the summary says, "... she was able to succeed in her journey of running FreeBSD daily on a laptop."

In this case, maybe it was because the user is the "FreeBSD Foundation's Executive Director".

Just to be pedantic, Clarisse Loughrey is a she.

"unless your input power is limited by something"

Input power is always limited by something, even if it's only the desire not to melt the cables.

"Entertain themselves" has some ... connotations.

Presumably, if this is "the most efficient EV Evah!", that means "production" EVs. Surely there are one-off custom designs that are more efficient. Such as this vehicle, which claims 797 miles per kw/hour. If my calculations are correct, that's about 1.25 Wh/mile, though it clearly isn't general-purpose: "... the vehicle drove at an average speed of 15.0 mph while carrying a 50 kg driver". It's surprisingly tiny. "Vehicle Weight: 20 kg race ready"

Wow. Is that ever a terrible idea. The parking brake -- also known as the EMERGENCY brake -- should be as simple and reliable as possible. I've used it several times when the main brakes failed.

According to Google AI: "Emergency Override: If your hydraulic brakes fail, holding down the parking brake button will instruct the computer to activate a controlled, emergency stop using the ABS system." One of the failures I experienced was of the ABS module: instead of pumping the brakes, it just disabled them entirely.

How does that work? Where does the energy to engage the brake come from? They obviously aren't using air brakes like large vehicles do. Google AI again: "An electronic parking brake (EPB) relies on a built-in electric motor to clamp the brake pads. If your car's battery dies while the brakes are off, the system cannot be engaged." (Similarly, if the brakes were applied when the battery died, they can't be released without external assistance. Also it notes that some cars have an auxiliary power supply like a supercapacitor.)

But, hey, electronic parking brakes let you drive away without the horribly difficult and complicated process of releasing the parking brake, so -- big win, no doubt! Another reason not to buy a "modern" car.

Pretty sure you don't mean "assignations" which can be delightful.

Do you mean this list, purportedly of "enemies of Ukraine"? If so, your "+4500" seems to be badly out of date. "On 7 May 2016, the website published the personal data of 4,508 journalists and other media members from all over the world", but Wikipedia says there were 187,000 names on the list as of 23 August 2019.

Or did you mean this list, supposedly a Russian list of Ukrainians to be killed or captured? (From February, 2022, before the invasion.)

"Stupid" is the key word there: "Georgina Owen followed a vegan diet but stopped taking vitamin B12 supplements for at least six months before she died by suicide in September 2019." B12 deficiency is a known side effect of vegan diets. (Also a risk if the only meat someone eats is chicken.) Supplements are cheap, easily available in the US (and Wales, where this took place), and effective. B12 is water-soluble, so it's excreted quickly.

B12 is also depleted by alcohol.

"Ball, however, pointed to research including the Landmark Twins Study ...." The link refers to a study carried out by NASA comparing one twin who spent a year on the International Space Station (or six months; both are mentioned) to his (identical) twin, who stayed on Earth. The report essentially concludes that time in space doesn't produce any significant lasting health deficits. Which seems to contradict the point of the Oxford Longevity Project report: two people with identical genetics ended up with similar health, even though they had very different environments, diet, exercise, and so on.

The Oxford Longevity Project report itself doesn't mention twins at all. What it does say, in the conclusion, is "Remember the essential pillars of living well: Attitude (how we choose to feel), Grub (what we eat and drink), Exercise (aim for at least a mile’s walk each day), Love (family, friends, neighbours—and importantly, yourself), Environment (the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the chemicals we keep in our homes and gardens), Sleep, and sensible use of Supplements." Seems to me those are mostly not under control fo the individual. Try asking someone who's severely depressed why they choose to feel that way. Or, better, don't. And surely everyone has a spare half-hour every day to walk. Right? And everybody can control their environment. If you happen to live in Cancer Alley in Lousiana, for example, just move! How hard is that?

For people who have the options available, okay, sure, good advice. But maybe the big win would be changing the environment to make healthy choices easier, like giving people more opportunities to exercise, and sleep, and a cleaner, less toxic environment.