At least not as dreary as Alaska affording to the map! I love the snow, unfortunately the clouds get depressing but do also mean we don't really get that oppressive Midwest cold that often occurs in the sunniest midwinter days.
Dreariness index not accounting for the fact that lack of potable water, temps above 110, and being on fire are all pretty dreary. But yeah inland northeast is pretty cloudy from the from the great lakes, also makes it warmer and snowier in the winter than the Midwest.
It shouldn't be a big deal, but prior to the Biden administration, Betsy Devos under Trump was doing everything possible to block even already available student loan forgiveness and throwing up as much roadblocks as possible. The department education had to be sued in court to get loan forgiveness granted for things they should have been helping with not blocking. And even after all that they repeatedly failed to follow their own settlements and court orders for years, just refusing to grant forgiveness. So even though a lot of forgiveness was technically already on the books, having a administration actually helping this process instead of actively trying to prevent it is a huge breath of fresh air. They also previously changed many terms in public service loan forgiveness to help it apply to more people and made lots of other positive changes that luckily the supreme court did not block. At least not yet.
Yeah the article is a little rosy and overstating things by using words like carbon free which obviously isn't the case, but fta:
"Retrofitting a propeller plane with fuel cells and liquid-hydrogen tanks would result in a nearly 90 percent reduction in life-cycle emissions, compared to the original aircraft, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), a nonprofit think tank. That’s assuming the hydrogen is made using only renewable electricity —not with fossil fuels, the way the vast majority of hydrogen is produced today."
Battery powered commercial airplanes are a pipe dream right now, batteries are just too heavy for anything practical with flight. Solid state batteries might reduce it some but probably not enough. We'll still need some kind of mass long distance travel in the future. Once they're able to scale up renewable energy sources even more, hydrogen made with those sources could become an important storage medium for getting that energy to power planes or other things where batteries are impractical. So it makes sense to at least be exploring these technologies.
Even for right now natural gas has a higher energy to co2 ratio than other types of fuels, so it's possible there may even be a current efficiency boost, though I don't know that off the top of my head.
If every new technology was attacked saying, well it's not perfect right now so don't even bother trying, we wouldn't have electric cars or all sorts of other innovations. I agree with you on the article though, I hate when they say stuff like "look we have carbon free airplanes now" when obviously we don't.
It even got adapted as a short animated bonus episode to the Sandman TV show.
Until recently the US preventative services task force had been recommendeding low dose aspirin to petty much everyone over a certain age for prevention of heart disease and ischemic stroke. They recently ended this catch-all recommendation for everyone above a certain age, but there are many situations in which a low dose aspirin is still going to be helpful for certain people. Low dose aspirin has a low risk of major side effects, but if what it's preventing is also rare then it might not be worth it for everyone. So it's no longer a catch all recommendation above a certain age, the decision needs to be made in conjunction with a patient's doctor based on their particular health situation and risk benefit balance. Age is another thing that may affect this balance, for instance this study was specifically looking at older adults where bleeding events are more common than in younger or middle aged adults, and shouldn't be generalized to all adults.
For secondary prevention (like someone already has evidence of heart disease or a past ischemic stroke), there's volumes of evidence showing it's benefit. Sometimes even two different antiplatelet drugs, like aspirin and clopidogrel, are even used together.
Fantastic classic 2d Zelda games. I prefer them to link's awakening honestly (though still love that game). Also if you finish one before playing the other there is a password system that interacts between the two games and unlocks more content. You can start with either one first. I kind of preferred playing seasons first but it doesn't really matter. Seasons is slightly more action heavy and ages a little more puzzle heavy in general.
They do. The problem is people sending emails from outside servers to them don't have that rule.
This has actually flipped now, more doctors are liberals than conservatives. Doctors are also overwhelmingly pro choice: https://core.wisc.edu/2021/12/06/cores-survey-of-doctors-highlights-widespread-support-for-abortion-access/
Harder to find evidence of historical attitudes, so not exactly sure when it flipped from the physician crusade of the 1800s against abortion, but here's a survey from 1991 showing broad support: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1781824/
The modern AMA (as much as I personally dislike them, and honestly most doctors identity very little with them) was also totally against the Dobbs ruling: https://www.ama-assn.org/about/leadership/dobbs-ruling-assault-reproductive-health-safe-medical-practice
For more accurate physician opinions you should also look at individual specialty groups, which tend to be much more representative of their members priorities. For instance ACOG, also totally against the Dobbs decision of course: https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2022/06/acog-statement-on-the-decision-in-dobbs-v-jackson
I'd also be quick not to jump to conclusions and assume a doctor's unwillingness to break the law is entirely selfish with no regard to patient welfare. If they broke the law, after getting thrown in jail for murder and being unable to care for their own families and loved ones, they'd also be unable to see more patients, many of whom they would have been able to help and may not get help now. Doctors have many patients, not just one.
Unfortunately yes. Not you or many in this forum probably, but it's popular many places to portray LGBT rights as "colonialism" and the idea that the western world is "exporting same sex relations" to places such as Africa. Then taking that a step further and using the forces of anti colonial feelings and nationalism and turning them against LGBT people. When it should be clear to anyone paying attention that, if anything, it's homophobia that has been exported around the world, both historically and currently. Tons of examinations of the topic available, here's one: https://www.aaihs.org/did-europe-bring-homophobia-to-africa/
Not to say that Africa is a monolith where every single pre colonial culture was super LGBT friendly or something, but just general trends.
Neuron
joined 1 year ago
You can say you can expect, but you really can't, because if you're talking about momentum you're talking about velocity and you need a reference frame to define velocity and therefore momentum. Let's pick the sun for instance with the assumptions of A. So if we just have one portal pointing one direction and one portal pointing up and chell walks in, you should blast out straight up at 66,000 mph plus the speed she was walking then. I think you could make the reference Frame to earth and try and get a, but that would create problems too.
I think B, velocity relative to the moving portal, would be the only way to maintain some kind of consistency in game if you were going to have moving portals. Your examples are most consistent with B. A portal falls on chell, how fast does she come out? The speed the portal fell on her of course. And then she stops going out once the portal stops moving because it hit the ground and has stopped moving and they no longer have any relative difference in velocity. You could also say in the platform example that the platform was sitting still and the portal was moving down, you would emerge out the portal at the speed the first portal was moving down. Both should be equally valid ways if you want to maintain some consistency. But all of this is probably why they don't allow moving portals in the first place.
In the end though these are definitely strange unknowable physics, portals don't exist, so really you could make the game however you please, either one is perfectly valid, you could just say any velocity on the other side is whatever it was in relationship to the earth before going through, but that'd be weird, because how fast do the people move out of A then? Do they fly out at the speed of the moving portal and then suddenly stop mid air and plop straight down? If you're not moving faster than a moving portal does is become brick wall and smash you out of the way so you don't gain any velocity in relation to earth so A can be maintained? There's no way to test it in the current games. Hence the endless arguing. But I think B would be most consistent and allow for some really interesting puzzles though, especially if you had two moving portals! Or maybe 3d portals that can sit in the air and allow full movement through them in any direction to help make it possible. Portal 3? In VR with depth perception to accommodate?