You're supposed to take a break every two hours anyways, that can include a meal, snack, and hydration.
If you stock up and have a case of drinks, that is why I suggested a walk as an alternative.

They work for the occasional "blue moon" charging, I think. It'd be like having a house that is solar + battery also having a generator for "just in case", allowing the house to still have power during that week long storm front, an inverter failure, or even just the annual family visit where the place has 10X the normal people there.
Especially if the genset is already there for things like transmission line failures.
IE use the genset to allow EVs to get there to begin with, then upgrade to solar one they're a regular enough occurrence for that to make sense.

Sheep are being used specifically for solar systems
They keep the vegetation down while producing marketable products themselves.

I don't generally consider bathroom breaks, basic food and drinks to be entertainment myself. If you consider modern 70% charging times (From ~15% to ~85%), that's about the mandatory 15 minutes break period mandated in various places for continued good performance.

By the time somebody has plugged in their car, walked to and finished visiting the restroom including washing hands, gotten a drink and a snack, and walked back (actual order optional), it's quite likely that around 15 minutes has passed.

Maybe include a walking path or something around these stations, get a little exercise in? I know I feel better about long drives with regular walking breaks.

That was phrased badly. What I meant is that you can keep multiple versions of a photo, used for different purposes.

If you're doing things right, watermarking/editing a photo doesn't destroy the original. The original goes into evidence, the watermarked is posted to the public. That way, there's evidence of the source of the picture, even if it is scraped and separated from the website/page.

In physical terms, it'd be like writing the details of the photograph on the back, like what we used to do with traditional developed photographs.

I think that you're mixing up that a photo can be used for multiple purposes.
Basically, the original unedited photo goes into the police report/file for evidentiary purposes.
The altered photo - probably also resized and compressed to be easier on bandwidth, is what is posted for publicity purposes, where there isn't a police report also attached, where there's a high probability of it becoming disconnected from the website.
The version of the photo intended for facebook or whatever shouldn't ever be presented in court.

I can see plenty of reasons to add the department logo, to remind people of where that particular bust came from.
What it doesn't need to be, what it shouldn't be, is something that is trying to look like an actual part of the original image. It should look like a computer logo on a photo, not an actual fabric badge pasted to the wall.

The original photo is evidence; it was still intact. The edited photo with the police badge watermark was to be a publicity tool, not evidence.

Though I'll state that you don't even need layers for this - just open the .jpg or whatever you got from the evidence in an email or whatever in paint, save as a new file, paste in the watermark, save again.

Well, your buying power would be crippled.

Let us not forget that as a female artist, there is more than 1 option for sticking stuff into.
What kind of looks like a selfie stick at first glance before I focus enough to see zipper, could be either.
I've also read enough EMT stories to believe it.

Sure, itâ(TM)s quite possible for two people to exchange offhand remarks about the local weather apropos of nothing, with no broader point in mind. It happens all the time, even, I suppose, right in the middle of a discussion of the impact of climate change on the very parameters they were discussing.

Oh come on.

We've been saying "Thanks, Biden!" for years as a joke, and you blue haired legbeards always got riled up with your "source????" and "citation needed???" cries.

(FWIW I don't support Trump and have never voted Republican).

The thing to understand is we're talking about sixth tenths of a degree warming since 1990, when averaged over *the entire globe* for the *entire year*. If the change were actually distributed that way -- evenly everywhere over the whole year -- nobody would notice any change whatsoever; there would be no natural system disruption. The temperature rise would be nearly impossible to detect against the natural background variation.

That's the thinking of people who point out that the weather outside their doors is unusually cool despite global warming. And if that was what climate change models actually predicted, they'd be right. But that's not what the models predict. They predict a patchwork of some places experiencing unusual heat while others experience unusual coolness, a patchwork that is constantly shifting over time. Only when you do the massive statistical work of averaging *everywhere, all the time* out over the course of the year does it manifest unambiguously as "warming".

In the short term -- over the course of the coming decade for example, -- it's less misleading to think of the troposphere becoming more *energetic*. When you consider six tenths of a degree increase across the roughly 10^18 kg of the troposphere, that is as vast, almost unthinkable amount of energy increase. Note that this also accompanied by a *cooling* of the stratosphere. Together these produce a a series of extreme weather events, both extreme heat *and* extreme cold, that aggregated into an average increase that's meaningless as a predictor of what any location experiences at any point in time.

That constitutional amendment was NEVER meant to allow any foreigner to come to the US and drop a kid and have it be a US citizen ......

It was to ensure the slaves were treated as citizens...they were forcibly brought here....

Very different.

SCOTUS didn't actually rule on this.....but they need to and change the misuse of this that has haunted us till this day.

What other countries allow this so readily....that a non-citizen drops a kid in your country and it has automatic citizenship and full rights??

So remind me again why trans people acting on their own fundamental and unchangeable mental processes that don't hurt anyone are bad? Maybe also explain again why respecting these people is "identity politics" while hating on them isn't as I didn't follow your logic there. I also don't follow how struggling to find new terminology to cover a minority group that has only been recently recognized (despite having always been there) is hateful.

For grown adults...no one gives a fuck if they want to play dress up, or call themselves whatever they want to call themselves (pronouns , etc).

The problem is when they want to force the overwhelming majority of normal people in the world to play their game with them....

Throwing fits when a normal server at a restaurant calls what looks to be a male "mr" or "sir"....trying to get them fired, etc.

It comes when men calling themselves women, start to intrude into real womens' spaces...locker rooms, competing in women's sports....etc.

The real thing that sank that ship, is when they started coming for children.

Trying to force books on trans and queer on school children.....in some states, ruling against parents that refused to permanently harm their kids with medical "trans help treatments"....hormones, surgery.

Allowing ultra left teachers to hide secrets on sexuality from parents while allowing them to speak sexuality into the children's ear....

People tend to get really fucking uptight when you start fucking with their kids....and moving to that plane was a bridge too far for normal people and parents.

Again, if you're a grown adult...you can dress and act how you want to....you can chop off or surgically do whatever you want with your own body and no one care.....aside from not wanting to PAY for it....that's on you too.