In concept perhaps, but idk if I would consider vaccines actually low tech, especially mRNA

It is, but like everything imperial, it is cursed. So it still has a degree sign by convention despite being an absolute scale

“These people are not much different than the working class” oh my god.

I’m going back to bed, that’s enough for today.

That’s why they scare me and I refuse to eat them

I did

Your entire argument is climate change? You do know climate change is not a root problem, it is a symptom right? Kill capitalism and you save the planet.

Also, you’re just proving my point. The vast majority of ecological destruction and GHG emissions come from the top 10% of the population in terms of wealth. In other words, most Americans, Canadians, Australians, and Europeans - capitalist countries. If we the 10-15% stopped living such excessively lavish lives, the planet could sustain us all.

“Overpopulation” is bunk. We have the resources to sustain 8 billion people, (or more, really) just not 8 billion Americans. But when people say there’s too many people, it’s usually a eugenicist argument that really means “there’s too many people in those poor countries.”

I know it’s a joke but it bugs me because foot-pound is energy not pressure

And how much by sea level rise?

Sorry, 3 bed 5 bath???

That would be old as fucking. Fuck, the word, has been around in English for about 500 years or so. Shakespeare is old as fuck.

Well that’s pretty easy, just fire it anywhere except a vacuum.

You can find the value of ln(-1)¹⁰ by examining the definition of ln(x): the result z satisfies eᶻ=x. For x=-1, that means the z that satisfies eᶻ=-1. Then we know z from euler’s identity. Raise to the 10, and there’s our answer. And like you pointed out, it’s not a particularly helpful answer.

Therefore i¹⁰ = ln(-1)¹⁰/pi¹⁰ = -1

This is true but does not follow from the preceding steps, specifically finding it to be equal to -1. You can obviously find it from i²=-1 but they didn’t show that. I think they tried to equivocate this expression with the answer for e^iπ which you can’t do, it doesn’t follow because e^iπ and i¹⁰ = ln(-1)¹⁰/pi¹⁰ are different expressions and without external proof, could have different values.

Whoosh

Scientific literature doesn’t always take on the observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion form so strictly. A lot of the time it’s “This is the state of the field so far. Hey look what we found, that’s interesting. Conclusion: somebody should look into this”

Proteins are also typically denatured by heat, and yet cooking does not remove prions. Prions are hard to get rid of.

Formality, just like meaning, is decided collectively. The reason you wouldn’t use “cheugy no cap” in a formal email is not because they’re not words, but because they are commonly understood to be informal.

They overturned the dirt in the exclusion zone to bury the fallout so that it’s less of a possibility for it to move around. You wouldn’t want to live there, drink from the groundwater, farm there, etc.

100% clean no, but 100% renewable is theoretically possible.

If the electric grid entirely eliminates fossil sources of energy, and the supply chain electrifies, and if the extraction equipment electrifies, and if the storage facilities are run off non-fossil fuel energy, and the manufacturing facilities, and everyone involved didn’t consume or use cattle products because of their methane emissions, and all buildings are wooden construction, and all polymers are plant-based, etc etc, then one could say a company uses 100% renewable energy.

But for practicality’s sake, 0% fossil fuel-generated electricity and heating is a good metric to call “100% renewable” for most things. If a manufacturing process inherently produces GHGs like portland cement concrete, you can adjust the definition appropriately.

And yes cap and trade strategies and whatever else are bs