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.

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

This reads like a LinkedIn comment honestly

It looks like it given the symbols used. P for pressure, rho for density etc. u-arrow is definitely a vector field, so it could be fluid flow. Otherwise it could be equally anything described by a vector field, like electromagnetism or gravity but they usually have a lot more E and G involved I think. I used to solve these but then I got a certificate so now I don’t have to.

There definitely is an element of people just not liking it because it’s new, but there’s also an element of not getting any say in it whatsoever.
Also, they really do get in the way. They make it harder to get a good seal between your mouth and the bottle at any angle, and at the top they hit your nose. They are slightly harder to use, especially if you’re using one hand for any reason, including if you only have one hand. Removing them without tools results in a sharp bit of plastic which pokes and irritates your skin.
Finally, this is another patronising effort which makes consumers lives more difficult (by whatever amount) while not doing enough to combat plastic waste.

You’ve found the source. This is outright plagiarism.

It’s CAROL!

What if being hammered silly by a pneumatic fist is my plan?

🫦

Yup. This is the last vestiges of the diminishing returns of the doomed strategy of blaming consumers for climate change.

I have to draw this line because it’s actually really important.
Smoking is when someone inhales smoke.
Vaping is when someone inhales vapour.
These are different in more ways than they are similar, but perhaps the most important is the difference in negative health outcomes. Smoking is about twenty times more harmful than vaping.
Vaping is a very effective path away from smoking for those with a nicotine dependency, and it’s counterproductive to attach the same stigma to both, let alone to consider them equivalent.

DELETED

Hang on, were you misunderstanding my reference to “the court”? Had you forgotten that we’re discussing a court case? You did mention it in your reply.
Yet you thought I was referring to this forum as a court, is that what you were saying here?
Have another read of it, and take your time by all means.

I’m a weird guy I suppose. Laters!

Oh I’ve hit a nerve. That wasn’t my intention. I’ll leave you to it, mate.

I’ll overlook what appears to be a baseless insult about me fundamentally misunderstanding language for the moment.

It is irrelevant that South Africa might have tried a different case, it’s irrelevant that they may care about some war crimes and not others, irrelevant where the funding might be coming from, what their motivation may be for trying this case and it’s irrelevant that may be experiencing political woe. None of these have any bearing on the credibility of the legal arguments being made. Discrediting the character of the source of an argument does not change the veracity of the argument; it stands or falls on its own merits. While you’ve raised a lot of interesting questions, they are separate and distinct from the question “is Israel committing/has Israel recently committed war crimes”, which is what the court is hearing.

P.s. his confident, yet flawed rhetoric belies the shaky legal ground he stands upon. I thought that would be implicit.

I think the argument goes:

1. Israel is innocent of genocide (of course this is the standpoint of a lawyer defending Israel against accusations of genocide).
2. If the court decides against Israel, it will make provisions which will make it more difficult for Israel to freely execute its military strategies against Hamas (because the argument is that all of the military operations so far have had the sole objective of wiping out Hamas)
3. South Africa is therefore attempting to make it harder for Israel to pursue Hamas
4. South Africa is assisting Hamas, indirectly.

I think that’s right?
So there are a few problems here, firstly the claim that South Africa is the legal arm of Hamas is clearly propagandising. It attempts to paint South Africa and Hamas as collaborators without evidence and it is a stretch to say this from the logic above.
Secondly, there is a fallacy present, it seems to me, in the assumption that if Israel were to be found guilty of genocide, then that would be aiding Hamas, which is unacceptable. This is a fundamentally flawed assumption: censuring Israel for genocide is a goal in itself regardless the consequences; crimes cannot be allowed even if they are perpetrated in pursuit of the goal of stopping other crime; Israel should be able to pursue Hamas without committing genocide.
It’s also an unsound tactic because it does fit so well with the narrative that Israel blames Hamas for everything. When interrogated about questionable Israeli military actions, on many occasions, their representatives have publicly blamed Hamas, often to the point of absurdity. This argument therefore seems like an extension of that tactic.

That this is his chosen, and presumably best available strategy belies the shakiness of the ground he is on, and does not bode well for Israel’s defence. The consensus among impartial academics is hat Israel is guilty of this crime, or is imperceptibly close to it.

It’ll be interesting to see how things unfold, and I stand ready to have my mind changed from my current interpretation of the facts on the ground and the legal definition of genocide which are pointing to Israel’s being guilty.

Sometimes referred to as a “hard start”

Oh well spotted, you’re right. I didn’t twig at all.