Why on earth would she have any interest in helping the company retain knowledge when the country that company is in has treated her so poorly? Move on and it’s their loss.

And every time one runs into a wall at fatal speeds, two slower ones appear.

I wouldn’t say inevitable, but there seems to be a whole aspect of capitalism where doing that which is not done is the norm. So all those baby steps inevitably lead to a degree of rapaciousness that is hard to envision 20 or 40 years ago.

“How did we get here from there?” One step at a time.

Not all consequences are immediate.

And have an easily accessed setting to turn it all off if you don’t want it. I’d even be okay with a physical switch. The short answere is, your appliance should do what you and only you want it to do, and you should be able to enforce that.

Yearning for the mines.

I had someone at work ask me if I was an expert at Excel. I’ve written macros in VBA and made formulas that would have been easier as a macro so I could save them as xlsx instead of xlsm. I said yes, with some hesitation. She asked me if I could help her with a problem and I said sure. The problem was a bunch of hidden cells. At least it wasn’t a bunch of data she’d deleted and wanted me to get back for her.

The amazing part was how hard it was to show the cells in the latest version of Excel.

Lol this is the typical takeaway. A better result would be to not engage in illegal practices and then it doesn’t matter if you put it in writing, but that’s not how you become a billionaire.

Yes, but if you increase the funding, they will say “Why is science so expensive?”

Why can’t we spend $20 billion on a full-scale reactor that may very well not work? Why is science so slow?

Thos is a false trail. We certainly may be missing signs of life that don’t follow patterns we aren’t looking for, but that has no bearing on this case. The argument in this case would be if there were paths we knew of that could produce these chemicals that don’t involve life, or paths that involve life on earth but could develop without life being present to produce these chemicals elsewhere. If we can’t rule these options, and possibly others I haven’t thought of, out, then we may only be left with alien life being the source of these chemicals.

Kind of my thought. China (or any single country as your supplier) isn’t great for national security, but damn Trump for making that option look so palatable.

I’m not sure how this works, but I checked your posting history and it didn’t show up there, either. I guess the great weakness of the fediverse is if the links are interrupted. Perhaps it was due to instance maintenance or something.

I’ve been cheated!

Could not find post in your instance.

It isn’t food, but you can always try this. There is even formal research. You’re welcome.

There is good evidence that natural gas infrastructure is so leaky that it could well be worse than coal on the GHG front. Now, coal is still the leader in a lot of other areas, and we’re better off moving away from both of them, but the argument that coal is better than natural gas isn’t completely without merit.

But heating the gas inside would also work because, no matter how perfect the seal is, it won’t matter if there is no vacuum to hold the two pieces together.

Well then, I guess it was perfect and stable prior to 2001, no need to investigate further!

This statement is only relevant if your knowledge of history started in 1980.