FundMECFS

And noise

Make cars a choice again. Not a necessity!

And watch car ownership rates plummet. Turns out most people would gladly save their car money for something else if they could.

I would recommend reconsidering Wikipedia (ie. the Wikimedia foundation) since they have large reserves of money and their fundraising is misleading.

Wikipedia editors even sort of had a „revolt“ against the foundation because of the misleading fundraising banners.

Source

International Space Station

Thinking about it this isn’t necessarily true in that moving the FOCAL relatively little could yield new things to observe (even microarcseconds). So you wouldn’t need a new FOCAL to measure each new thing. However each FOCAL would be measuring a miniscule bit of space over its lifetime. Which means for each distinct object that isn’t basically a neighbour in angular terms to a FOCAL sent you’d need a new FOCAL probably. Unless our long term energy generation/harvesting and propulsion in deep space significantly improves technology wise.

FOCAL would be able to observe only objects that are right behind the Sun from its point of view, which means that for every observed object a new telescope would have to be made.[3]: 33 [5]

Ah….

Sometimes the Fishies get their Revenge

Happy cake day :)

While he publicly ruled out nuclear weapons today. And therefore the risk of something like that is quite small.

I absolutely am not resting easy knowing in US law as commander in chief the president has sole authority to launch nuclear weapons, no entity can veto this decision.

The critique isn’t that canadians are basically USians its that the US appropriates the name of the entire continent(s) “America” for it’s own country name.

I agree with the anti-billionaire sentiment.

But the headline is written in a misleading way. I don’t know why we’re sharing a low quality substack with 2 likes when there are plenty of higher quality pieces that come to this conclusion.

“Study:” in the headline implies that they are repeating what a single study said. It’s the journalistic convention for using university press releases. In this case they are not doing that. But compiling a bunch of sources (none of which are academic as far as I can tell) and coming to their own conclusions. Nothing wrong with that. But it makes the title misleading.

Secondly in their own first couple paragraphs they show that the 0% while existing in some cases is not what usually happens. The truer “in practice” average is 3.4% or 8.2% depending on how you calculate.

So we can all agree that’s shocking and needs to be changed. But no point in making misleading headlines because it just makes us seem less serious when arguing about this to people who need to be convinced.

Unlike leeches, the ecosystem won’t collapse if they go extinct. Billionaires are artificial leeches.