There is a hydrogen fusion reaction that releases beta particles, i.e., electrons. This could be used to produce electricity directly without boiling water, but I think the heat output would be such that you could also boil water for more electricity.

I honestly agree, and said as much shortly after the invasion of Ukraine. Based on the world’s assessment, they should have just steamrolled them, and didn’t. I also said it would behoove the world powers to reassess their nuclear capability and got a lot of downvotes. The facts as they stand now, though, is the NK can’t get a nuke to American territory, not even Alaska (let’s not talk about Guam and Samoa, even America barely acknowledges they’re part of America). Russia, on the other hand, might be able to, and we don’t know for sure they can’t. All they need is one good sub with working missiles. None of this really matters for Europe, and even 10% of their stockpile working would be devastating for the world, or at least the people living on it. I’d like to think that Putin put more effort into maintaining their status as a nuclear world power, but I would have thought the same of being a military world power, too.

It asks for the most recent bread purchase. Technically, it doesnt even have to be from the Loblaws family, although I don’t know if putting anything else would disqualify you. It also doesn’t say prior to 2022, so what you bought in the last week would also be correct. That makes it easier to answer, I suppose.

Yes, those things can be done, and they’re good ideas. One key difference between the U.S. and North Korea thing is that Russia can, or at least is believed to be able to, use a nuclear response anywhere in the world. North Korea couldn’t threaten the U.S. with nuclear reprisal. But, yes, removing the entrenched and uncompromising leader is the first step, and that is much harder against a nuclear power.

I would say about the same number of people are offended by profanity in public as they are religious acts in public. Moreover, I would estimate the number who are offended by sex acts in public is much higher than either of these. So, for the sake of other people’s sensibilities, shall we ban public profanity?

Of course, none of that is possible against a nuclear power, because it first relies on unconditional surrender. I also don’t think any leaders in the world have to political will to do that, either.

This article gives some information on why some have abandoned hope for Firefox and Mozilla. AI focus, changing its stance on selling user data, and the overall loss of focus. It’s still better than most, IMO, but some of its forks better represent those who feel that way.

Sorry to break it to you, but you might want to start looking at Firefox forks.

I hope we get to see them hoisted by their own petard.

Or even median income.

If the problem isn’t race, statistics indicate they will likely match the trends for the region. Would it surprise you to learn there are a lot of homeless Indians in Delhi?

If the problem is race, you need to ask why. No studies I’m aware of have strongly linked success or mental health with race. If people don’t want to rent to, sell to, buy from, or employ certain races, this has a chance of increasing the number of homeless people of that race, relative to their proportion of the community. It may also drive up the number of that race leaving that area, further inflating the relative proportion of homeless people of that race.

And finally, if the demographics of your community are an outlier of the demographic statistics you’re reviewing, the more likely they are to not match the statistics.

But once again, those will explain how, not why.

Like most things, it’s pretty simple from the far view. But there are a lot of details, much of which scientists are still trying to figure out.

The short version is, mitochondria, those powerhouses of the cell, have their own DNA, just like some bacteria. They do their own living, dividing, and dying, and have their own lineage. When a cell splits, some of the mitochondria go to each cell. So the mitochondrial DNA will be inherited from whoever donated the cell, or egg in this instance. So the lineage of the mitochondria would be related to the mitochondria of the egg donor and any other offspring she had, but the DNA in the nucleus, the mouse DNA, wouldn’t be related to her.

…and that opens the door to mitochondrial diseases, all of which are pretty terrible.

Mitochondria have DNA. Mitochondria are passed from mother to child through the egg. The egg used in the scenario would have mitochondrial DNA from the mother mouse. All of what would typically be called mouse DNA came from the two male mice. So, technically DNA from the maternal line, but only mitochondrial DNA, not mouse DNA.

Edit: ah, autocorrect.

Imagine a lake, say the one below Niagara Falls. Water flows in, and water flows out. It seems impossible that lake could ever flood bases on the puny efforts of humanity, doesn’t it? But, if you upset the balance, either adding too much water, or taking away too much, that lake will flood or nearly disappear. And it doesn’t take the volume of Niagara Falls to make that happen, just more, or less, than the existing system can handle. And it may not happen in a day, or even in a year. But that’s okay, we’ve been putting carbon dioxide from fossil fuels into the atmosphere for a couple centuries.

Our planet has had volcanoes since it had a surface for volcanoes to erupt from. The carbon in that oil hasn’t been interacting with our atmosphere for a long time. And it’s true that the planet, and life on it, will continue if we released all of it. But evolution is generally very slow at adapting, and when it’s fast it’s usually because the things that can’t handle the change die off to make way for species that are more fit for the new environment than the current ones. One of those creatures that could die off, or have a massive die-back before recovering, is humanity, and I’d rather my species not have to go through that.

And no, your single car doesn’t produce much. A single mosquito doesn’t kill many people, either. But there are millions of cars just like yours, just like there are billions of mosquitoes spreading disease to humans, killing millions every year. So, even though a barrel of crude oil is only the equivalent to about half a ton of atmospheric CO2, those 35 billion barrels of oil per year gives us about 16 billion tons of CO2. All of that above and beyond the relatively stable environment we’ve had the last 5000 years or so. And by the way, volcanoes are estimated to emit about half a billion tons of CO2 per year, whereas humans emit about 35 billion tons, about half of that from oil alone. Sure, your little car doesn’t look like much, and the smog in a big city isn’t that much compared to what a volcanoes puts out on a good day, but that’s mostly because that volcano is doing all that emitting in one place. Oil wells would look pretty impressive, too, if we burned everything we were pumping as soon as we had it out of the ground.

As Marx said, “A capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with.” You’re argument is only valid if you believe anthropogenic global warming isn’t real. If it is, and all the science indicates it is, then the business case is only valid in the short term, with massive penalties in 15 to 40 years.

Businesses make decisions based on the next quarter. Countries tend to have to look at the next decade.

As someone who promotes fairvote.ca and how broken FPTP is, you’re aware that FPTP promotes a two-party system. In Canada, the only two players on the national level are the liberals and conservatives. And a lot of people voted liberal because they really didn’t want conservative. The liberals didn’t have to do anything to get this result - the system is behaving as designed.

The whole point is to look at places that already have the policy you’re considering to see what the results would be if you enacted that policy locally. In large part, people are very similar throughout the world. If you think Canadians having the same access and attitudes towards guns as Americans wouldn’t lead to similar outcomes, you’re denying reality.

And yes, there are people living in areas where wildlife risks are not compatible with gun safety, or where law enforcement is too remote to be a viable option as protection from criminals, but these people are a tiny minority. Anyone who feels like they need a gun for protection while in their home in a city is operating from a position of fear, and would be the type to shoot their pregnant wife or a delivery driver who went to the wrong address. Just like we see in America, which has enshrined the idea of needing arms for self-defense.

Chretien is a shitty politician, just like nearly the rest of them, but he is right in this circumstance.

On an unrelated topic, I used to work with someone who could type just fine with winter gloves on. She would do this all thentime because the office was so cold.