I could never fully understand the explanation for lift. It turns out it’s not the explanation for lift.
I could never fully understand the explanation for lift. It turns out it’s not the explanation for lift.
I recently learned that in my car the same light is used to indicate that the parking brake is on and that the brake fluid is low. Nothing bad happened, and it’s getting worked on, but my first thought was that the sensor on the brake must be broken. It’s poor design, seemingly without reason.
I have heard that the reason for this is that trucks in that size range are less regulated by the EPA. Companies didn’t want to put in the research to develop trucks that met emissions standards, so they just make them really heavy for no purpose, evading regulations. Take this with a grain of salt, because I’ve done zero research of my own on it.
Maybe something about learning how to use apostophes or whatever.
Use infinite monkeys.
Volts are not a unit of power. Watts are a unit of power.
Never heard of Android I guess?
There was a game called Mind Trap that asked about this. It said the right answer was that running didn’t get you less wet, and that it made no difference how fast you walk. The explanation said to imagine the rain was stationary in the air. Then as you walk at any speed you’d walk into the same number of rain drops. Such a bonkers stupid explanation.
Require all LLMs to provide answers in the form of haikus.
Although there is a common adjective order, it’s not always clear which category a word belongs in. People insisting that the words “modular” and “versatile” fit into whatever category they chose are presenting a lot more certainty than is warranted. I am a native speaker, and either order sounds fine in this case.
People know what it is. That’s why they’re down voting it. These don’t build communities.
We all have access to RSS and can create our own sets of feeds. Posts are for the things that are worth talking about. Spamming a community makes it harder to find the interesting things.
According to the article you have provided, it has… The first figure under Global Studies shows nuclear prices have increased, and the general trends of the various studies in the two tables show an increase over time.
The other table has newer studies than 2015, where nuclear is not cheaper, but you’ve only pointed out the column where they found it was cheaper 10 years ago. Wind and solar have gotten cheaper to produce, and nuclear more expensive. It is not cost efficient compared to other modern options.
It costs more to produce that electricy with nuclear than it does to produce it with other technology. Making lots of cost inefficient electricity is still making cost inefficient electricity.
Nuclear plants cost a lot to produce but electricity from a nuclear plant sells for the same as electricity from anything else. Since many other options are cheaper to produce and maintain, nuclear is less cost efficient, not highly cost efficient as you claim. That’s why it’s not successful.
Wind and solar are both cheaper forms of electricity than nuclear. It’s not like this is a two-way race between nuclear and fossil fuels. Nuclear is a losing tech, right next to fossil fuels.
My moral compass is also why I dont use search engines. It’s absolutely cheating to use modern technology to find out something.
I haven’t used Bronner’s soap in years, but unless something is radically different, that’s sawdust.
CloudFlare makes more than a billion dollars a year in revenue. The work done for this project is probably worth millions to them and they paid out $100,000. That sounds like bullshit to me. Let corporations hire lawyers instead of doing their work for a pittance.
All these Sanders supporters talking about the establishment as the reason he doesn’t win. Yet none of them voted in the primaries this year. None of them wrote him in for president. Sanders won’t win because instead of going to the polls and actually voting for him, his supporters will post on the Internet about wishing they could go to the polls to vote for him.