Why is anyone still on there?

At least it's hypothetically possible to create with less net carbon impact than fossil fuels. It still has a long way to go, but we've got to invest in things that aren't practical right now if we ever want aviation to decarbonize.

Well, tankies are pretty good at eating their own, even when they agree on 99% of stuff.

This comment is the perfect example of how everything goes to shit in this world. It should be in a museum.

The part where it's two horrible headlines about Texas in a row har har har

How much data will they be taking from sites that use this?

To build on this, the oceans absorb carbon from the air. As we remove CO2 from the ocean that differential becomes higher and more CO2 comes out of the air.

Will be funny to watch him crumble at the first moderately critical question

Refusing to condemn Hamas when they intentionally target civilians for atrocities won't win Palestinians any supporters outside largely irrelevant internet communities. Israel does things that are clearly in the wrong all the time, and so does Hamas. It would be nice if people could hold the extremists on their own side to a minimal standard, even when it's uncomfortable, but that lack of accountability is why we're here.

In the 21st century, there will be wars to give Toledo to other states.

Yeah, you're doing a terrible job. I heard the party you're supposed to be running has never won an election.

Could we stop creating chemicals and dumping them everywhere without knowing what they do? Or at least only use ones that break down relatively quickly instead of becoming ubiquitous in the air and water before we realize they're terrible for us...

I, for one, am absolutely boggled right now

Remove the subsidies and institute an actual carbon price mechanism, and we'll see how quickly people begin to switch over.

The constitution is outdated and causes congress to get jammed up while the executive grabs more power because congress can't govern.

Modi has really taken his country in an authoritarian direction.

Canada seems to be having a moment with this one. Standing ovation for an open Waffen-SS veteran in parliament was a bad look...

It's hypothetically possible that we could hack biology enough to become functionally immortal, but do you really want that? Considering the impact 90 year old Senators are having I'm just imagining an ever more out of touch gerantocracy. Imagine young people being born into a world where no one ever retires or dies, and their opinions are fixed based on what they experienced 100 years ago. Change is good.

Soon it will be possible to cling to the broken shell of what you once were, a mere vessel for arthritis pain and bittersweet memories of a time when you used to be able to walk to the bathroom. Hooray!

I don't think most people who hear the "fire in a crowded theater" line are going to think it's about protesting war. It's an example when speech can have an immediate harmful effect that seems to have a lot more relevance to the discussion of limitations on expression.