Electric cars have been around for a very long time. According to Wikipedia, in 1912, 38% of 33,842 cars in the US were electric.
I think that Tesla showed that a modern performance car could be electric. It made electric cars cool again.
I would never be caught in a Tesla though.
Great! It works. Wonder what wrapper it might be, it behaves the same in zsh, dash and bash.
Org-roam for emacs is an alternative. It doesn’t have a phone application though.
Have you tried org-mode in emacs? It’s got everything and more! You have zettelkast-style note taking, journal, agenda, spreadsheets and a bunch of other stuff. And everything is saved in text files.
Emacs really is a great operating system!
I read some of the studies on this and i would say that the evidence is shaky at best. People seem to have an easier time reading texts using fonts that they are used to.
I’m currently fighting waybar to make it look similar to what you got. Do you happen to have config files to share?
Yes, but never for meat. I use it when I make toffee, bake bread and some other things.
AFAIK, there’s only three Star Wars films. Episode IV, V and VI.
"Let's keep the costs public and the profits private!" they said.
Your link refers to a BBC article which I read. It compares cities with other cities, making the argument that the bigger cities produce less carbon dioxide emissions than smaller cities. The source of data here is a bit mixed but mainly it relies on governmental data for cities of 135,000 people or more. It's hardly rural when there are high-rises. It's also a bit unclear on how emissions are calculated. It includes industrial emissions for the place where the goods are produced, not where the goods are consumed. Generally, consumption is equal to emissions. If a millionaire flies in a private jet, the emissions shouldn't be attributed to those who make the plane or pump oil out of the ground. It's the millionaire who is consuming the plane and fuel that is the polluter.
The BBC article isn't written by a journalist. Its written by a Paul Swinney who "is director of policy and research at Centre for Cities, a think tank dedicated to improving the performance of UK city economies". The article should be viewed as an opinion piece.
In the other source, WNYC Studios, there's a professor Cindy Eisenhower who's being interviewed. She says, and I quote, that "in reality we're finding that -- many studies emerging that would suggest that if we account for all the things that people buy, uhm, that cities oftentimes have higher footprints despite the efficiency gains that relates to living in really dense settlements." Listen to the interview that your source links to at https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/urban-versus-rural-carbon-emissions
This is a great example of why secondary sources shouldn't be trusted without verifying what they say. The author of the article you linked clearly misunderstood the interview. What the professor is saying is exactly what my municipality found: that even if people living in rural areas have higher transport emissions in their day-to-day life, a single trip abroad by plane may produce as much emissions as a full year of traveling to work by car. The direct transportation emissions in rural areas are completely offset by higher consumption and overhead emissions in cities.
My municipality made a study where they looked at the carbon footprint of residents in three different areas. Those with the highest carbon emissions lived right in the city center, next to where they work. The ones in suburbs were right in the middle with respect to carbon dioxide generated by their lifestyle. Lowest were those living 30 km or more away from the city center.
I drive to get to work, nothing else. I don’t drive to the store, I don’t buy clothes, I don’t fly to holiday destinations. I don’t need or want to, since I have everything I love right outside my door. Those who live in cities are statistically those who need to make the largest changes to their lifestyle if we are to save the planet.
Photography, like all art, is completely subjective. A good photograph is one that makes you feel something. I don't care much for all those pictures with the perfect compositions but it's the feeling that is important. Extra points for a photograph that delivers the feeling that the photographer intended.
What makes a good photo is that you want to look at it. Or maybe you don't want to look at it but you just have to. Composition can help tell a story but composition does not make the picture.
I really like the photographer Robert Adams, and in particular his book "Skogen". It's filled with nice pictures and very few of them follow many of the common composition "rules".
You like what you like. If someone shows you pictures, just tell them what you like about the pictures.