That’s assuming an isentropic chicken though. You need even more slaps to make up for the heat loss to the environment.
That’s assuming an isentropic chicken though. You need even more slaps to make up for the heat loss to the environment.
What do you mean? I’ve found their testing graphs especially to be very clear.
YouTube gives a b testing for YouTubers based on watch time, so they can tune their thumbnails to the one that gets the most watch time. The audience doesn’t always know the history of the chanel, they need to go off the thumbnail.
Here’s a podcast from the show writers on the compromises and consolidations they needed to do for the mini series.
Linus didn’t say piracy is theft to my knowledge. He pirates a bunch of games.
You have I have very different ideas of tech illiterate. Most of the hosts have forgotten more than I care to learn. I guess if you work very technical tech stuff 24-7 you have a higher standard.
That’s the way that yields the longest combined watch time from the audience.
Do they go back and change thumbnails after a while? LTT does focus on a lot of evergreen content as well.
The only thing they could have done better was have the third party release the report. I don’t think they released it yet, but they had intended to at one point. Maybe the lawyers told them they shouldn’t?
Add blocking is piracy, but piracy is okay.
I wonder if those are less likely to be blocked on networks.
Why are the offering those incentives? Because of lower servicing costs?
Why are they comparing cost to lease? I guess does that include the lower maintenance cost of EVs somewhat?
Oh I get what you’re getting at now. Yeah if sequestering is limited, you should be using as little as you can. But for applications like rockets, it’s much more effective to sequestere CO2 than to try to make something like an electric water rocket.
If they’re actually sequestering the carbon fully, like injecting it back underground, then it’s equivalent to not emitting in the first place. I think the issue is that the offsetting methods companies are using are not actually sequestering carbon. Like promising to not cut down trees or burying logs insufficiency underground.
I guess they’re relaxing the policy, since they’ve hinted previously that they viewed attacks on Russian territory to be a threat to the existence of Russia and would use nukes in response. But they didn’t.
Even in the books he downed a distant nazgul solo.
Plastic recycling specifically in the US has previously used empty ships going back to Asia to ship ‘recycling’ there. Nominally, they would sort it to be recycled. But since it’s only economical to recycle a few sorts of plastic, most of it is burned. This has terrible health effects for the country, hence why several countries blocked the US from shipping it to them.
More info from climate town https://youtu.be/PJnJ8mK3Q3g
Some more info from climate town
If the carbon is properly sequestered after capture, and the energy use is accounted for in emissions, wouldn’t net zero be just as good as zero? It’s almost always going to be way more expensive to take the carbon back out of the atmosphere than to not emit it in the first place, so I’d think you’d get mostly the same effect.
I think years of careful human interaction is pretty high quality. Imagine if a baby could only ever hear people arguing in the other room or reading Wikipedia entries.