From some other articles I’ve seen recently, it’s possible this could cause a split in the church. And if it does… good. Maybe that needs to happen for the Vatican to evolve into the modern era.
I am guessing that the most cost-effective option is just replacing the tree, which is probably what they will most likely do. But I hope they take another tack and find a way to restore it.
As a Latino I don't give a fuck about the USA paying for its crimes, to my eyes that's a crazy dream. I just wish they stop being bully two-face assholes already. The world needs the best USA right now.
And please, I'm talking about representatives of the USA state that most of the time represent corporations, not the actual people.
I do not think so. The USA is an important part of our world, whether we like it or not. It's been around for centuries now, and has a well-deserved place as a leading nation. However, they need to address so many problems within their borders before they start meddling everywhere.
The rules based world order(tm) is a global imperialist system of monopolistic capital extraction and exploitation of the periphery. The US is the head of that hegemonic order. It provides no value to the rest of the world. It exists to extract value from the rest of the world.
The US position in the world is no more earned than a person who buys a slave deserves the title "master"
Greta is very scientifically minded and rational, unlike how the media likes to portray her. They use the emotional sound bites and almost never show her referring to paper after paper.
Normally I'm not a "lesser of two evils" type, but nuclear is such an immensely lesser evil compared to coal and oil that it's insane people are still against it.
I spoke with a far left friend of mine about this. His position essentially boiled down to the risk of a massive nuclear disaster outweighed the benefits. I said what about the known disastrous consequences of coal and oil? Didn't really have a response to that. It doesn't make sense to me. I'll roll those dice and take the .00001% chance risk or whatever.
Yeah, nuclear is to fossil fuels as planes are to cars, safety wise. Sure it's a huge deal when an accident occurs, but that's because accidents are drastically more rare.
Nuclear is fantastic and would have been even more fantastic 30 years ago. But it's 2023 and renewables are getting better every day. There's just no real reason to not invest primarily in green energy sources, especially when the track record on nuclear waste management is abysmal. People will say "oh but the resources, oh but the storage, oh but the blah blah blah". We act like these things can't be done, but they are being done all over the place. While the US argues about whether solar is viable, China has almost produced more solar panels in a year than the US has ever produced. And they are planning to try and deliver to other countries with less productive capacity as well.
My understanding is that they eventually become unserviceable as they age, because of mechanical/structular reasons, or because the costs of servicing them is so prohibitive that they are unserviceable economically.
That they definitely have a begin, middle, and end, life cycle.
Why go nuclear when renewable is so much cheaper, safer, future proof and less centralised?
Don't get me wrong. Nuclear is better than coal and gas but it will not safe our way of life.
Just like the electric car is here to preserve the car industry not the planet, nuclear energy is still here to preserve the big energy players, not our environment.
For what I’ve read, it’s beats nuclear tech exists and is ready to be built at scale now. Renewables are intermittent in nature and need energy storage to work at scale.
We don’t have the tech for a grid wide energy storage.
I don’t get why they weren’t monitoring the cheetahs before one died. Seems negligent AF to import an animal and then watch it die. They literally let one die before deciding to do anything. These cheetahs aren’t pure, wild animals if they are imported. WTF India, maybe treat people and animals with more respect. Instead they’re response is, “Oopsies, I guess it was too hot while we watched them die. ” Morons.
The majority of polled economists in the US do not support getting rid of student loan debt but continue to argue that the Wall Street Bailouts were a good idea. The Brookings Institute for example publishes near monthly articles on the subject.
Economists are not objective. They work for banks. They tells us what banks want us to think.
This is so far from being the truth. Please get an economics degree and see if you still think that.
First off I don't need a degree in theology to be an atheist. Nor a degree in Chiropractic "medicine" to know that it is dangerous bullshit.
Secondly, what did I say that factually was not true?
I don’t know if I like this place. Everything is so conspiratorial.
Sorry, you should ask for your money back. Go hang out on like reason.org or some economists blog and circle jerk each other on how great student loans are.
Correct, you don't, because those are garbage disciplines based on nothing whereas economics is decidedly not. Economics is the study of constrained choice, using rigorous math to model these scenarios and applied statistics to test the models. Any 1st or 2nd year course you take in economics isn't revealing truisms about the world - they are introducing concepts and highly simplified, abstracted models so that when you get into upper year courses and you start using extremely heavy math to make more realistic models that are serious attempts to explain actual human behavior, you're not completely lost.
You take at face-value that certain subsets of economists argue in favor of bank bailouts but against student loan relief is proof that they're evil, or garbage, or bought and paid for, without even understanding the arguments. The bank bailouts were loans which the banks paid back - would you be fine with the government giving out more loans to pay off existing student loans?
I often follow links in the articles for extra context and some rabbithole escapism.
Rather than finding old strips of anti-bird spikes at rubbish dumps, Moeliker, who previously won an Ig Nobel prize for documenting the first known case of homosexual necrophilia among ducks, says...
is likely a "thats enough internet for today" moment.
Your excerpt made me read the article. For those who haven’t or just don’t want to read it, ducks aren’t the only “crazy” birds. Crows and Magpies have been using these spikes and other dangerous human liter as defense from predators. What type of dangerous liter you might ask?
In 1933, a South African museum reported a crow’s nest fashioned from hard-drawn copper, galvanised iron and barbed wire. Nails, screws and even drug users’ syringes have all found their way into birds’ nests.
Some have even ripped metal off nearby factories to build their nests. These birds are on another level.
theguardian.com
Top