Ellipses... definitely.

Sentences ending a full stop. Somewhat.

Very context dependent though

I as pro-EV as the best of them. A cradle to grave emissions drop of 40% is a great step forward on reducing transport emissions (public transport and active transportation are a whole other aspect of this we'll avoid here). However, characterizing the energy gap for EV charging as a non-issue is disingenuous.

You've correctly pointed out that peak hours are when the grid is most strained and vulnerable. Well, if most everyone who drives to work starts charging their EV when they get home from work, that is at the highest peak of the day: around 5-7pm. It's the addition to the peak curve that's the real concern. In most places, that means triggering on fossil fuel burning facilities to meet that peak demand. It also means increased peak loads on the transmission infrastructure that could overwhelm it.

That being said, there are some simple solutions: e.g. charge EVs on off-peak hours, smoothing out the demand on the grid. Where I live there is already an incentive to charge overnight in the form of ultra low overnight rates. I'm sure we'll find the solutions, but please don't pretend it's not a problem.

As with most sci-fi the author gets loopier in the later books. That being said:

• Dune: masterpiece of philosophy, one of the best books ever put to print
• Dune Messiah: a worthy sequel and must read after the first book; completes Paul's arc
• Children of Dune: more plot driven than the first, but still thematically rich and entertaining.
• God Emperor of Dune: the most divisive of the books: you love it or you hate it. I am in the love it camp, the book is unhinged and the themes are marvelous. This is where I'd stop a read of the series.
• Chapterhouse and the other (Heretics?): forgettable in my opinion, simply because I've forgotten them. Later book fan opinions welcome.
• anything Brian Herbert: not terrible but not awfully good either. Makes for decent light reading I guess, and there's good lore building in some of the books despite some unforgivable retcons (Agemmemnon, sigh)

It's the last equation j(x) that's wrong. What's plotted on the right is something like 0.2x+1.6

Your graphing calculator is more than capable of plotting linear functions just as well as desmos.

Nobody's life is in any real danger here. They and all their equipment are roped in on at least 3 redundant anchors (probably a number more). Rock climbing looks scary but with proper precautions and training it is not significantly riskier than other outdoor sports.

The level of ignorance from these commenters who know nothing of the sport but speak with such authority on it really reminds me of the worst of reddit.

Connect is a great android app where you can block instances. Though I agree this should be a site wide feature.

You're being downvoted because this is the attitude that got us into, and is keeping us in, this mess. Let us be precise with terms: housing is not a speculative investment. You don't buy a house because you presume it will appreciate 100-1000% by the time you sell it. That attitude leads to the paradox that the government is unable to stop: you either build/allow affordable housing, lowering prices and crashing people's speculative investment, or you restrict new home building through restrictive zoning and NIMBYism run wild, letting houses appreciate to the point of unaffordability.

You buy a house to live in long term: to buy it back from the bank and own it all to yourself. You have right to sell it for an equal or roughly price tracking rate with inflation. That's a good investment. Every Canadian has the right to buy affordable housing. Saying affordable housing is affordable renting is not only reductive but downright prejudicial: people don't rent because they're poor. They rent because they want the freedom to move without selling a house. They rent because they are building lives as students or young families or their careers. They rent because they choose to invest their money in something other than house equity. And all the real, concrete policies which help new homeowners (ie building more housing) help renters: these two groups are not at odds with each other.

Y'all really don't read the articles. The UN already has reports on greenwashing woth pretty solid definitions and recommendations. The report was linked in the article.

Excerpt from the linked UN report:

Our report also specifically addresses the core concerns raised by citizens, consumers, environmentalists and investors around the use of net zero pledges that make greenwashing possible. Our recommendations are clear that:

• Non‑state actors cannot claim to be net zero while continuing to build or invest in new fossil fuel supply. Coal, oil and gas account for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions. net zero is entirely incompatible with continued investment in fossil fuels. Similarly, deforestation and other environmentally destructive activities are disqualifying.

• Non-state actors cannot focus on reducing the intensity of their emissions rather than their absolute emissions or tackling only a part of their emissions rather than their full value chain (scopes 1, 2 and 3).

These recommendations explicitly cover the ad campaign discussed in OP's article, as well as many other greenwashing ad campaigns.

What they've done is reprehensible but this is simply misinformation, that livestream has been up for weeks.

It's the instance owner. Another reason to use instances other than world and ml.

Einstein's most famous equation relates mass and energy: E=mc^2 . So, if you're not matter (mass), you're energy. Which, by the way, is how we make energy in fusion reactions, converting mass to energy.

Historically, fuel regulations have been wildly effective at controlling and reducing vehicle emissions. Improving and tightening those standards is another good step forward for our climate and air quality.