Thank you for sharing the link. Here's the relevant bit from the article:

Most gas stations don’t want to install new tanks just for E15. Instead, they’re installing blender pumps, which mix the ethanol and gasoline together in the right proportion depending on which one you want. But there’s a problem: if you pump E15 into your car, about a third of a gallon remains in the fueling hose when you’re done. If someone comes along, switches to E10, and buys a single gallon for their lawnmower, they’ll get a third of a gallon of E15 and two-thirds of a gallon of E10. That comes to about 11.7% ethanol, and that might be enough to set your lawnmower on fire.

So the EPA produced a new rule: if you sell E15, you have to require your customers to buy at least four gallons of gas regardless of what blend they’re buying. That’s a big enough purchase that the residual fuel in the hose is too small to matter

I would love to vote third party if we had ranked choice voting. Without it, voting third party may just make it easier for Trump to win.

How is it punishing customers? The rest of the article suggests it may improve things

“It speeds up the process at entry and speeds up the process at the checkout,” he said. “That’s what we believe and we’re going to pilot it.”

All space heaters operate at the same efficiency since they convert electricity to heat via resistance. You may have a small one and low electricity rates in your area to see a negligible change. Or maybe other uses went down and masked the increase from the space heater usage.

Really exciting development for the climate change mitigation toolkit. Let's hope it's not too challenging or costly to scale up and deploy.

I agree lawns are dumb but from an environmental perspective they can be net carbon sinks, which I found surprising. Though they are still bad for other environmental reasons.

Some are parasitic, most are saprophytic (decomposers/recyclers), others are symbiotic and exchange nutrients with trees

I can see how it's strange on the surface, but ultimately the carbon emissions wouldn't be there if the polluting activity was not funded. So to whom would the carbon emissions be attributed otherwise? Just the CEO?

The study's primary metric appears to include both supplier and producer emissions proportional to income and investments. What alternative do you suggest?

They literally need to meet airtightness requirements to meet the Passive House standard. It's tested with a blower door test to check the air exchange rate at a prescribed negative pressure. You may be referring to a loose definition of passive house, instead of the standard, though. Airtightness is not "awful" as you suggested - mechanical ventilation provides fresh air

A bidet. You can install it yourself in 20 minutes and enjoy a lifetime of cleaner buttholes and save on tp.

Yeah, this is a pretty appalling graphic that maybe seemed good in theory but is hostile to the reader in practice.