It's trash...if its gonna leak...it already has.

Hence why modern landfills have what is called a "liner" at the bottom.

More specifically, a modern landfill has a compacted clay layer at the bottom, then an impermeable membrane on top of that, and a leachate collection system. Plus groundwater monitoring wells.

And it can be that as trash is deposited, additional layers of soil coverings and impermeable membranes can be added.

Not to mention other systems that may be found in modern landfills, like methane gas collection systems.

So, once he digs, who gets to pay to repair all of that and how is that funding guaranteed?

I'm having a hard time seeing the parents' side.

If a student is doing simple math homework and uses a calculator, that's cheating.

So why should it change if a student is doing an essay and asks an AI to write it?

In both cases, the educational goal isn't to find a tool to do the work, but for the student to understand the concepts being taught.

Now the parents' argument that this may negatively impact their child's future also seems pretty flawed to me. The same could be said for a student that buys a paper off the internet from a cheating website, is caught, and receives a failing grade. But few people would say that the cheating student was unfairly punished.

What is the cost to adopt to a warmer climate?

Coastal cities will require either abandonment of infrastructure due to rising sea levels, or expensive mitigation. In practice, probably both will happen.

We'll see farming being no able to be profitably done in many areas, and will require new farms to be developed in areas where the climate is now more adaptable. That is going to be costly and disruptive as well.

We'll see massive migrations of people, both internally and internationally, as some areas decline and other areas grow due to the climate changes. That is going to be disruptive and costly.

And there's political concerns, as these changes will result in some countries losing power, and others gaining power, changing the balance between them.

Not to mention concerns at the personal level - even if your current location is going to survive climate change, there will be changes to heating and cooling requirements, and disruptive events like floods, extreme weather, fire and landslide danger may change for you. What happens when your flat land becomes more prone to flood due to weather changes, or your hilly land becomes more prone to landslides due to vegetation changes?

I do agree adaptation is going to have to be part of the solution - there's too much climate change already locked in. But we better realize that there's going to be a pretty big cost to most of us.

MOND is a class of hypotheses.

To be fair, something similar can be said for dark matter - *what* dark matter is has many explanations.

And in favor of the dark matter theory, some of the explanations for what dark matter is could be very plausible - some have theorized that at least part of what is termed "dark matter" could be objects such as black holes and brown dwarfs that we aren't accurately measuring. Let's just call this the "boring dark matter" for the sake of discussion.

I actually favor "boring dark matter" to some degree. While I don't think it can explain the degree of discrepancy we observer, it could be a large enough factor to cause other theories not to fit - this would include other dark matter theories as well as modified gravity theories.

I'm going to offer you a choice - you get to kill one terrorist, but at the same time, you will also kill a young child.

Would you take that deal?

Okay, perhaps instead of a young child, how an older child? Or even an innocent adult?

Again, same deal, for one terrorist, you also kill one innocent.

Would you gladly take the deal? Or would you reject it? Perhaps somewhere in-between - you may accept that the life of the innocent is a regrettable but necessary sacrifice to take the life of a terrorist.

Or perhaps you reject this idea as absurd - questioning the premise as contrived.

After all, it sounds contrived. But as a general rule, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in most wars is greater than one civilian for every combatant killed. A one-to-one ratio is more favorable than most wars.

So regardless of what your choice would be, it is wise to feel to uncomfortable.

The hospital is about 30 miles away. But for severe cases, you probably want to call 911, due to the ability to air lift to about 120 miles or 180 miles away for larger facilities.

But I'm talking about a scenario with one ICE vehicle and one EV for a two vehicle household.

Instead of trying to prove it, maybe the smarter move is to try and disprove it. Concoct an experiment that would disprove the simulator hypothesis if its untrue.

There are many ideas in philosophy that aren't provable or disprovable. Ideas about what is good or right aren't provable.

My problem with it is that it doesn't result in anything. Saying we are in a simulation doesn't provide any meaning or any course of action. So maybe we're part of a simulated reality created by hyperintelligent ducks to study supernova, and we just exist as a byproduct. What does that matter?

It's not science. It's not philosophy. It's just BS.

Yeah how cruel to arrest people for stealing so much from stores they're shutting down

You probably should dig deeper into those claims, instead of relying on claims by those who would benefit from deflecting possible problems with their own management.

EVs as rentals might start to make sense after the charging infrastructure in this country has been built out further and most people are familiar with EVs. I recently made a trip from Orlando to Jacksonville in my Bolt EV and while I was charging for the trip back, I ended up helping someone with a rental figure out how to use the Electrify America charger, since they were only familiar with ICE cars.

You need to change the mentality first. I have rural family members with two vehicle households, who typically drive 30-50 miles per day to commute into town and back out to their homes. Perfect situation for them to buy one EV and charge them at home each night, while keeping the ICE vehicle for longer trips. None of them have done so.

How does the same pay for a 32 hour work week cause inflation? Everyone will have the same amount of money as before.

But Assange actively took part in committing the crime. You can't commit a crime and then say, "But I'm a journalist, so it's okay!" The notion that that should be legal leads to absurd places.

I'm of two minds of this.

Yes, Assange participated in encouraging hacking.

On the flip side, Assange was outside of US jurisdiction.

So for the argument for absurdism, should everyone be subject to all laws in other countries?

I really don't want to open up the possibility that someone could run a murder-for-hire scheme from another country with lax laws. But I'd also rather not be extradited for saying something like "GLBT people deserve human rights", even if it's against the law in some countries.

No.

In the US, yes:

EPA has adopted emission standards to control both exhaust and evaporative emissions from small spark-ignition engines. Phase 3 exhaust emissions standards took effect in 2011 or 2012, depending on the size of the engine.

I could see return to office reducing efficiency.

I currently WFH. Most of the people I work with aren't local. RTO would mean I get to go into a noisy, distracting place to do my work, and that's going to lower productivity. In addition, when WFH, I'm prone to working a little later than usual to finish up a project - I don't have a commute, I don't have to beat traffic, and I don't have to rush home to let the dogs out.

A return to office is going to reduce my efficiency. YMMV.

Then when winter comes it's nice to have a truck to get through snow.

It's nice to have snow tires to get through snow.

Trucks, due to their lack of weight in the back, tend to suck in the snow. Especially 2WD.

I say this as someone who lives in Minnesota.

I do find a truck useful for DIY, but I just keep an old one around for the few times a year that I use it. But if I had to buy a replacement, I'd strongly consider a regular vehicle with a good tow rating and a trailer. Especially with how ridiculously small modern truck boxes tend to get these days.

I do feel an obligation to condemn one side or the other

There's probably something deeply wired into our brains - a legacy of our time in small bands of primates when we didn't have as many neurons to figure things out. Where we had to simplify everyone to being either with us, or against us.

But the simple case is that there's usually more than two groups. Take the example you gave - the Hamas attack on Israel, and the Israeli government's attack on Gaza. There's far more people involved, even unwillingly.

Social media may amplify the voices that want to separate people into two groups. It may reinforce our beliefs by curating the voices that agree with us. Or by showing us the extremes of the voices that disagree with us. There are millions online, and all it takes is a tiny fraction to give the illusion of a large, homogenous group.

It's different in the real world. Our meatspace social networks have a limited number of people.

I'm not saying all groups are equally good or bad. But what I am saying is that there are many, many groups. Far more than social media would lead us to believe.

And it's harder in the real world to stop seeing people as human beings.