Maybe they just took 15 years to get their moderation system right if all you ever did was ahitpost.

Literally not how recessions work, but sure let's roll with it.

Google's fundamentals are web ads on its search.

AI search is more relevant and popular than ever, whereas web search results are less and less so. And AI search is proving to be less monetizable than web search.

Ergo, fundamentals have changed. More monetizable search is slowly getting deprecated, whereas less monetizable one is replacing it everywhere.

So what you're saying is there is a chain of accountability that leads directly to people via those elected by people? Glad we agree. Hint: Chain of accountability means there are links in the chain. You at one end of the chain have no direct connection to anyone on the other end of the chain (I'm really glad you used the word chain here because it so helps drive my point perfectly).

The chain of accountability is a perfect analogy. You the people, should elect the policy makers, and their information should be public. That's the end of it. Precisely no other people report to you, precisely no other people are accountable to you.

I'm a shareholder of a company, that doesn't mean I'm privy to their janitor's phone number, or that I am entitled to know the name of the engineering assistant.

No one knows you other than your reports. Just because you were working under a policy stupid enough to publish your name and direct information publicly doesn't mean your comment makes any sense. The "people" presumably the public have zero clue what work you directly produced. They see a road was built. They elected an official who ran on a policy of building roads. No one cares if "Arrogant-Bastard" (LOL, thanks, I don't often get a chuckle when looking up who I'm talking to, though you don't come across as one :-) ), did the soil load calculation of the road.

The chain is in place. Your responsibility and accountability stops where someone else takes over, and you are not in any way serving the public (that's just a corporate mission statement), you're serving the whims of your accountable manager.

What kind of a stupid idea is that. Maybe you should design and build your own road. Design and build your own gas system. You don't need experts right? Hell maybe Trump can build the plumbing to your home, better hope he knows the difference between drinking water and sewer pipes.

Civil servants are not the government. Civil servants work for a government. Politicians create policy direction to serve the people, that doesn't mean everyone underneath them you is at your beck and call. Quite the opposite. Civil servants are not elected bureaucrats for a reason, and that is they are hired for their expertise, not simply to serve you, And you by design should have no influence on them beyond electing the leaders who create the policy they enact.

Political appointees should be public, they are accountable. The rest of civil servants are no different to you doing your job at your place of employment.

No, only those who report directly to politicians are political. The rest is just a bunch of people working under a policy, in every way identical to what your employer tells you to do. Who is your employer, what's your position and phone number?

It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, harder to actually stand by your conviction. Common out yourself.

Yes hydrogen really is rubbish quality helium ;-)

The problem has nothing to do with the process and everything to do with the cost of energy. Energy is ludicrously cheap in China which is why so many companies move process production over there. I worked at a plant in China where our steam boilers were coal fired. COAL FIRED. The cost of steam generation was insanely cheap and not something that could ever be replicated in the west. Suddenly running a compressor from a turbine to run your Joule-Thomson cooling process needed in the purification step becomes a lot more viable.

The Chinese don't have some magical new process to purify helium, they just have different market economics.

Lifetime emissions aren't relevant. The point is time. All emissions are in the construction phase which means if you want to build a nuclear power plant right now, today, for the next 25 years you are INCREASING CO2 emissions, significantly. After 70 years you get the numbers you have.

Hint: If you are standing on a train track watching a train come towards you wondering what you are going to do about it, the answer is not "tell the train to drive faster", the answer is not "stand still for 20 years hoping that some project will divert the train around you before you get hit". The answer is to look at alternative meaningful solutions to your problem, relevant to your timescale.

I'm not lying, at best I'm not not explaining things in terms simple enough for you to understand. I hope the train analogy helped. Don't get hit.

Yes because waiting 30 years vs 25 years makes a big difference to a problem we have now. I'll accept you calling me innumerate. I'm calling you mindbogglingly stupid.

I presented the IAU logic, it would seem your own logic has thrown an error. Are you running on a Pentium chip by any chance?

Errr no, the definition of "clearing the orbit" is that it is not gravitationally influenced by another object in its orbit except for its own moons. It's a measurable definition.

No it's not. A dwarf planet is not a type of planet. The definition of planet and dwarf planet are independent definitions that are exclusive from each other, one isn't a subset of the other. Both of them are subsets of planetary-massed celestial bodies orbiting a star.

Put the dictionary aside and pick up an astronomy textbook.

Exactly. The Duo is just like every other phone on the market. It has no unique features at all. (Note this was sarcasm intended to imply the stupid parent poster is in fact stupid).

Then it ceases being wear-out. The failure mechanism for both can present the same, but the underlying cause is different from a reliability point of view. Infant mortality is typically a case of manufacturing QA/QC. Real world use is presented as a constant failure rate with a failure distribution that is affected by how you use it. By all accounts this isn't the case here as people either experience rapid early failure or have no issue at all.

The "you're bending it wrong" isn't a statistical failure mode. It's a design defect that showed a device was not intended for use in a specific circumstance. It doesn't even qualify as a fatigue failure (constantly increasing failure rate).