Gotcha, no problem, I did take it as criticism of my comment but that was a reflex.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I hate this saying. It's not explicit, and logical consequence isn't bidirectional, but it implies that those who do remember the past somehow won't repeat it. Which is blatantly false. Many people, even those who intimately know history, want to repeat it. Either because they think material conditions are just different enough to lead to a different result this time, or that the precise way the actions in the past was carried out was subpar and with tiny tweaks it would lead to a different result, etc. I do generally agree with the explicit statement[^1], but I strongly disagree with the implicit statement.

[^1]: And even on the explicit statement I still have reservations. Sometimes material conditions are different enough, or the precise manner in which actions are carried out are different enough that those who know nothing about the past aren't condemned to repeat it: what those who know nothing about the past do is only superficially similar to the past, and can have radically different outcomes.

Really shifting the goalposts there.

You start with

The only nuclear threats have some from the US.

Then someone provides a list of such events that are from Russia and not the US, then you shift to

Every single one of these is outlined as a response to military aggression.

The original commenter didn't say they were without context. They simply said that the threats were made, which they were. You were so adamant that they weren't made that when you were shown proof that they were made, you have to reframe it.

No, and to paint everything this way serves to delegitimize alternatives to capitalism. China is not capitalist, they are socialist. They have their own problems, because no system is perfect. But there are alternatives to capitalism, and not everything is "secretly capitalism in disguise".

Isn’t someone just going to fork Chromium, take out this stuff,

Yes, upstream Chromium forks will likely try to remove this functionality, but

put in something that spoofs the DRM to the sites so that adblocking still works?

This is the part that is not possible. The browser is not doing the attestation; it's a third party who serves as Attestor. All the browser does is makes the request to the attestor, and passes the attestor's results to the server you're talking to. There is no way a change in the browser could thwart this if the server you're talking to expects attestation.

ISPs coming out and bothering you cause you pirate stuff? Never heard of it.

You must have the distinct privilege of not living in the USA or several other Western countries.

I’d jump ship immediately if I got one such letter.

If you mean jump ship off that ISP, there's nothing you can do. You can go to another ISP (if there even is one in your area), who will do the exact same thing. You can jump ship entirely and not have internet, I guess.

but I wonder whether some form of dehumidification specifically, rather than just cooling, could also aid survival?

The issue is that in general, dehumidification is energy intensive, just as cooling is. In fact, one of the best ways to dehumidify air is to cool it down. Other non-mechanical solutions, like chemical solutions (e.g., dry hygroscopic material with large surface area) don't have an energy cost during their use, but they have an energy cost in their production and renewal. For example, to dry the hygroscopic material back out to recycle it and re-use it, you must supply a lot of heat energy.

I would be interested in an energy consumption comparison though, between: cooling air to keep it under the red area of the curve; dehumidifying air to keep it under the red area of the curve; and some combination of the two (as most air conditioning units do). It may be the case that dehumidifying is less energy intensive.

Brave Search and Brave Browser are both products of the same company, Brave Software, Inc.

No you're right that was an honest mistake. I misremembered Economy Minister as Prime Minister.

If they use them purely on open battlefields then it’s not such an issue.

What is an "open battlefield" during a war is no longer a battlefield after the war is over. After the war is over, if you've littered what used to be a battlefield with unexploded bombs, you've ruined that area of land and made it extremely dangerous to civilians.

They're both acceptable in English. The rule is generally "an" if the following word starts with a vowel. But, it gets a bit tricky with initialisms (like URL) because URL is normally pronounced something like "you-are-ell", and not "earl". So the spelling starts with a vowel, but the pronunciation doesn't. Nobody would fault you for using one or the other in a situation like this.

You realize localized weather is not always predictable far enough in advance to do much? Moreover, airlines don't require passengers specify their weight when they purchase a ticket, so they can't really plan ahead for going over a specific weight that is itself tied to local weather conditions. Mind you, this could be avoided by building in more wiggle-room, but that is not going to be accepted as a solution because it results in waste much of the time if, for example, you have empty seats because you wanted to be sure that you wouldn't run in to the issue of going over weight.