And step six is “Profit”

All songs should be taken literally, which is why I eat love and prayers, and have a restraining order against me for trying to drag Hozier into a church at knifepoint.

Who knows if this is an improvement.

The Max Planck Institute for Physics knows and spoiler, yes. Yes it is.

Your comment doesn’t stand up. It seems you’ve got something against fusion energy for some reason.
On cost: it’s a best guess, since we don’t yet have a working fusion reactor. The error bars on the cost estimates are huge, so while it is possible fusion will be more expensive, with current data you absolutely cannot guarantee it. Add to that the decreasing costs as the technology matures, like we’ve seen in wind and especially solar over recent decades.
On nuclear physics PhDs: that’s no different to any energy generation, you need dozens of experts to build and run any installation.
On waste: where are you getting this info on the blanket? The old beryllium blanket design has been replaced with tungsten and no longer needs to be replaced. The next step is to test a lithium blanket which will actually generate nuclear fuel as the reaction processes.
This is the important fact that you have omitted, for some reason.

Nuclear fusion reactors produce no high activity, long-lived nuclear waste. The activation of components in a fusion reactor is low enough for the materials to be recycled or reused within 100 years

And that is why it’s so important this technology is developed. It’s incredibly clean and, yes, limitless.

As for your advice, there was a time not long ago when we didn’t understand how to build fission plants either, and it cost a lot of time and money to learn how. I wonder if people back then were saying we should just stick to burning coal because we know how that works.

I think your last sentence answers the OP in a nutshell. There’s nothing more to it than that, and there needn’t be.

You’re the problem. You get that, right?

This reads like a LinkedIn comment honestly

I fundamentally disagree that this distinction exists, and even if it did this is not a situation where it would apply.

But it does exist; preaching is persuading or guiding others to follow your own beliefs. If no distinction existed then we would be mechanically bound to preach what we believe, and we’re not, so it’s a choice.

Everyone is a hypocrite to some degree. There are levels of hypocrisy that are breathtaking, and levels that are just meh.

‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a biblical commandment, not a principle. It comes from the fundamental principle of harm minimisation, and the two examples you gave are different (extreme) applications of that principle, see: the trolley problem etc. It’s morality for babies; looking at extreme black and white cases to be able to get a clear, consensus issue. Life is rarely that simple. Morality is never that simple.

They straight up went “when I break my own moral principles it doesn’t feel as bad as when others break them against me”

I’m not sure, that seems like another extreme interpretation of something more nuanced.

This behaviour is morally no better than that of megachurch pastors who preach the immorality of gay sex and get caught paying men to fuck them in the ass.

OP didn’t say they preached their morals though. Holding morals and preaching them are different things. I’d put this more in the category of people who pray secretly to a different god than the state-enforced religion, since OP is living in a capitalist society whilst not holding capitalist values.

I think there’s got to be room for some grey areas in morality. I abhor late-stage capitalism, but I would not rather die than shop at a chain supermarket.

So you’ve cherry-picked from the Wikipedia article, with the transparent goal of trying to persuade that this organisation is not reliable. For example, I could say the following:

From Wikipedia:

In short - the site is independent, one of the most popular news sources in Palestine. Some people have tried to connect them to Hamas, but nothing has stuck. Israel killed the director of the site in 2023.

“In 2015, the Christian Science Monitor reported that the network was run by 12 freelance correspondents and 60 volunteer field reporters…”

“The QNN states it is independent and funds itself through advertisements, and that it aims to expose the acts of the Israeli occupation.”

“QNN director Sari Mansour and freelance photographer Hassouneh Salim were killed by an Israeli airstrike on the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza on 18 November 2023”

Now I’m not saying I’m convinced either way. But my question is why are you trying obviously to convince me one way?

Face paint it is.

It’s really good life experience I think. I don’t want my kids missing out on it either.

I liked service work. I tended bar and worked in kitchens for years while I got my qualifications. I sometimes think everyone should have to do retail or service for a bit so they can meet as many different types of people as possible. I work in research now, and I see a lot of the graduates coming in in their twenties and they don’t understand shit about how the world works, or how people work. I think there’s a lot of value in the experience you get in those jobs that people look down their noses at. If it paid the bills as well as science and engineering, I would’ve stayed.

Jeeziz. We’re about the same age and I was unable to even make a sandwich at that age I think. Mind you, I bet 13 year old you was ecstatic about that 5 dollars an hour in 1995. I hope you’ve got a picture of yourself in that box for the laughs.

My first job was call centre work at 16. I answered an advert in the local paper. Trying to use a script to swindle old ladies out of their pension for a commission, it was horrifying. I remember thinking “is this what adults do for a living? Cheat each other??” Looking back, I wasn’t that far off in a lot of cases I think.

I respect that, but your 14 year old is probably quite unusual in that respect. To his credit, of course! Some kids mature faster, and in different areas at different rates. I have a 13 year old and a 16 year old and neither of them would be capable of paid work in my opinion. I love them from the bottom of my heart but they would crumble after a shift at BK

So that’s an inclusive “or” in the definition. If EITHER of those criteria are fulfilled, then the definition can be applied. Since the criterion about the age of majority is true then the definition is true.
So conversely, a person above the age of majority who hasn’t reached puberty yet (medical condition maybe? Just suspend disbelief for the sake of the argument) is still by definition a child.

It is blatantly the opposite of accurate. When teenager describes both a thirteen year old who hasn’t hit puberty and a nineteen year old who could fight and die for their country, it’s obviously not an accurate enough term

A lot of people wouldn’t call a fourteen-year-old a child? Which people? I don’t know of any.

Assuming the literal meaning of “literal”, a child is, according to the OED, literally:

a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

Can you explain how the pictured human being does not fit the description above?

It’s only the US and Canada that use “aluminum” though isn’t it? The rest of the world and most languages have it as “-ium”.
Humphrey Davey actually changed his mind and changed it to “-ium” shortly after discovering it.
Also, IUPAC has “Aluminium” as the primary spelling, though both are acceptable.

Can I ask where you got this info from? The article says the bill is 300 pages long. I’m never getting through all that.

Edit: the article also claims age verification for porn sites is still in there?