He was claiming he had a helicopter that couldn’t land due to FAA rules or some stupid crap. Whatever happened to that? The tweet reminded me of a troll in a forum who everyone is ignoring and he keeps shouting he’s being shadow banned because he’s right.

A stalled hurricane doesn’t have to be large. Fran is an example back in history, and Harvey in more recent. But stalled storms also has its origin from climate change, because the weather steering systems are broken and cause/allow it.

There were warnings for Georgia and the southern Appalachia, but the storm moved so much faster at the end and carried so much water inland. The ability to hold more water in the atmosphere has been an ongoing concern from climate scientists, and this is a clear example of how it can lead to disaster.

He talked about using nukes before he got elected, people still voted for him. A trump voter isn’t going to be swayed by logic or facts or ethics.

So a lot like getting a D&D group together. Oh no…

Exponential growth: hold my beer

There’s emissions for any activity, but the nuclear fuel cycle seems pretty spread out to suggest it’s anything comparable to what the fossil fuel chain of fueling is like.

‘There’s no way to legitimately register voters online’, says one of the few states that doesn’t do it. Sounds like a convenient way to discourage voters.

‘We really want to stay a red state’, says same state.

I believe the biggest source of emissions for nuclear actually come from the construction phase, so getting past that, maybe. Still would be preferable to also reduce energy use so that the “better” source can be spread more efficiently.

Unfortunately everything has byproducts and emissions that we do. The only real solution is to reduce, which is difficult given the population and so many third world nations wanting to join a higher standard of living. Natural gas is probably better than coal overall, but on the scale of bad for the environment where 10 is the worst, is an 8 or 9 better? Technically, yes.

There has to be some head canon out there, but I think this is one of two things. Either a cure-whatever-is-the-problem pill, like with nanobots that can do whatever is needed in the body (so she had more than the kidneys fixed, that was just what was on her chart). Or in his equipment he has a medical replicator that will generate from base materials any type of specific drug needed for the diagnosed problem.

That would require more than just the pay rate to judge. It seems to be a decent bump up, but I was under the impression that some of the concern that led to the strike was how automation was going to affect their job. $63/hour isn’t all that great if you have half the hours, or no job at all because they needed only half the workers.

Even just the condition being called “rare” is odd, since that’s 12 million women. I have no idea how to do odds on fertilization of two different eggs, but I can’t see it as unlikely unless it’s a factor of the periods of each set of ovaries being usually offset.

Another recent US case has other info. The “hyperovulation” is the key component here, as normally the ovaries in even someone with two uteruses release one at a time. I read the first article as saying two ovaries per uterus, but that doesn’t seem to be the case, it’s just a duplication of the uterus and sometimes each ovary connects to its own, leading to these odds.

I find it difficult to understand what today’s Republican party would offer to a black person. (Or any really, but specifically black)

Netscape was never lesser or evil.

Brings back memories of that one Lost episode with the unstable dynamite.

Also an episode of Grey’s Anatomy.

That doesn’t seem to be a reclaiming of a word (since it wasn’t previously used in a good way), but a reuse of a historically insulting term. I can respect the effort, but I still cringe when hearing it used as an amiable word. I don’t know if that makes me racist because I have trouble moving past it being a slur and distasteful. Maybe it’s still too new and it’s going to take a few generations to become more normalized.

Laughs in electrical tape.

The flaw of the question is assuming there is a clear dividing line between species. Evolutionary change is a continuous process. We only have dividing lines where we see differences in long dead ones in the fossil record, or we see enough differences in living ones. The question has no answer, only a long explanation of how that isn’t how any of this works.

A reminder that this is still how they think.

Here’s a fact check OF a fact check about Project 2025, something that has been stated recently will gut the National Hurricane Center.

USA Today’s fact check of that claim

Now when I first ran across this link, I thought, hmmm…are liberal Youtubers making up stuff to sell their position as a hurricane approaches? Maybe so. Then I read the article and actual text from Project 2025.

Project 2025 “does not call for the elimination of” the National Hurricane Center, Heritage Foundation spokesperson Ellen Keenan told USA TODAY.

Not in the text, this part of the fact check is correct. The text calls for review of it as well as other agencies and downsize or move resources around as needed. But then I see:

Data collected by the department should be presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.

Well, that set off some alarm bells in my head. They aren’t actively proposing to shut it down, but there does seem to be an agenda here.

Project 2025 accuses NOAA of “climate alarmism” and calls for it to be "broken up and downsized.” “That is not to say NOAA is useless, but its current organization corrupts its useful functions,” the playbook says of the agency.

I read all this as exactly how MAGA Republicans in power have been treating anything tied to climate change. They aren’t completely cutting things out, only the parts that are inconvenient to their agenda. Which of course is terrible science, and will absolutely affect the ability to learn and respond to future threats.

USA Today is a tool for them if they are marking such claims as completely false.