The cat isn’t part of the equation, I gave no opinion on that. The risk of never testing your failure response is much higher than the risk of testing your failure response.
If a test happens to save a cat? Lucky cat. If not, they’ll still have to test it at some other point anyway.
A backup system that isn’t tested regularly is not a backup at all, just the illusion of one.
If you can’t turn the power off with 24h notice then nature will turn it off with zero notice at the most inconvenient moment.
I feel like most cats don’t really have opinions on universal healthcare, and most are already castrated
“Mushroom” has been banked by me for my next grey cat for a while now, perfect cat name just waiting for the right coat.
Only talking cats can drink wine, the same rare mutation gives them a voice and the liver function to process alcohol
Some people are just like this, and if cinema is their sleep language, let them watch sleep
Be fair, cats usually struggle with grammar, this one did very well.
Very cute! We sadly had to hide our sheepskin once our two cats started tearing the wool out a bite at a time. Looks like you’re having better luck!
As the owner of 2 black cats… as far as I’m concerned all black cats are a superposition of each other until you get with a foot or so, spot the one tiny clue that gives them away, and they finally collapse into a specific cat.
It’s also been used for hundreds of years, it’s not a post-internet concept.
It might be a youtube title, or it might be quoted Greek or Latin text. Or various other uses in between.
They shrank by weight and volume for sure.
Not by screen area though.
I’m curious how you’d phrase it, there is a law in Ukraine and it is widely reported to apply to “men aged 18 to 60”. What phrasing would more accurately depict the current situation without having the problems you list? If you meant instead that the law itself is problematic, then I can understand that, it’s received some criticism for that side of things.
Same could have been said about electricity not that long ago. Now that renewables are building steam the switch to electricity is revealed as perfectly logical, why not the same for hydrogen?
Hydrogen is a harder sell, thanks to the poorer density, cost of storage, and the poor efficiency of production. But given the variable production of renewables all but guarantees we’ll end up with vast amounts of excess power we can’t store, we will need a fuel we can make from electricity that we can use, and hydrogen is one of the contenders for that task. Whether it’ll be the winner is more doubtful, but something will be, we certainly will never build enough batteries to avoid giving away cheap power for things like this, and there are still things that benefit from higher density fuels that aren’t going away (planes). Accusing people of being “worse than deniers” just because they’re looking a little into the future and betting on something that might turn out to be Betamax is a little presumptuous.
Hydrogen today is a fossil fuel. But hydrogen has a very obvious method of green production, the only problem is cost of power to produce it (thus why it’s all fossil fuels right now) but the inevitability of variable power sources like solar and wind in the future guarantees excesses of cheap power, so cost of power today is not going to be the same barrier tomorrow that it is today.
As for the fossil fuel industries plan to use hydrogen to maintain business as usual in a post fossil fuels era, I really don’t care if they manage to use their machines as long as they stop using fossil fuels, so that’s fine with me.
Edit: to be clear, I’m not supporting a hydrogen based economy, since that makes no sense, hydrogen is a storage medium for energy, not a production source. There have been people pushing it as a magical solution to all things, that is stupid. As a small piece of the puzzle it could fit, if we don’t find a better chemistry for high density storage of energy with simple conversion from electricity, which is as yet an unsolved problem.
Militaries are typically tasked with protecting more than themselves. If someone invaded Britain then the military wouldn’t have to wait until the invaders had shot a soldier to start defending the country.
A better question is whether they are attacking US and UK citizens/ equipment.
As dumb as this comment is, you’ve just guaranteed that I’ll never forget the name of this problem, so thanks for that
I agree with you and Alexa, but you can always say “five past six” to avoid the [zer]o if it’s bothering you.
I remember on a German exchange at school the German student could not handle “oh” sounds in phone numbers at all. So it might be tricky for non native speakers (though I think they made more of a fuss from anger at how stupid English is than out of genuine confusion…)
The answer is dependent on context I think.
In a universe where the whole future of the world is laid out before you and you can choose 1 death or many deaths, then sure, pick the greater good.
The weakness of simplistic “greater good” automatic arguments is that in a real universe it opens you up to manipulation.
In the end, there’s no avoiding thinking through the incentives from all perspectives. And that indeed suggests not giving in to the rioters, to protect the integrity of the entire legal system and reduce the risk that every trial becomes a show trial dictated by whoever has the biggest mob.
I have made so many mistakes. At least the cats are cute.
Voids often have limb arrangement malfunctions
This is ours from last year