It’s expensive. When you’re allied with countries that already have nuclear weapons it’s much better to spend those money on conventional weapons. Nuclear weapons isn’t something that’s to be used. It’s only a deterrent against opponents that have nuclear weapons.
I think that one of the reasons why Russia is losing the war in Ukraine is that they have spent a lot of money on nuclear weapons. They have had no use of these weapons in a conventional war.
Can emacs export to asm from an org-file?
This is very true. I hadn’t used Microsoft Office since 2007 and at my new workplace everyone’s using it. It’s really hard and I don’t find anything. Yesterday I was working with tables but I gave up and had IT install libreoffice instead.
The one that burns the heretic, kills the mutant and purges the unclean!
The emperor protects!
Org-roam for emacs is an alternative. It doesn’t have a phone application though.
I read some of the studies on this and i would say that the evidence is shaky at best. People seem to have an easier time reading texts using fonts that they are used to.
I’m currently fighting waybar to make it look similar to what you got. Do you happen to have config files to share?
Yes, but never for meat. I use it when I make toffee, bake bread and some other things.
AFAIK, there’s only three Star Wars films. Episode IV, V and VI.
"Let's keep the costs public and the profits private!" they said.
Your link refers to a BBC article which I read. It compares cities with other cities, making the argument that the bigger cities produce less carbon dioxide emissions than smaller cities. The source of data here is a bit mixed but mainly it relies on governmental data for cities of 135,000 people or more. It's hardly rural when there are high-rises. It's also a bit unclear on how emissions are calculated. It includes industrial emissions for the place where the goods are produced, not where the goods are consumed. Generally, consumption is equal to emissions. If a millionaire flies in a private jet, the emissions shouldn't be attributed to those who make the plane or pump oil out of the ground. It's the millionaire who is consuming the plane and fuel that is the polluter.
The BBC article isn't written by a journalist. Its written by a Paul Swinney who "is director of policy and research at Centre for Cities, a think tank dedicated to improving the performance of UK city economies". The article should be viewed as an opinion piece.
In the other source, WNYC Studios, there's a professor Cindy Eisenhower who's being interviewed. She says, and I quote, that "in reality we're finding that -- many studies emerging that would suggest that if we account for all the things that people buy, uhm, that cities oftentimes have higher footprints despite the efficiency gains that relates to living in really dense settlements." Listen to the interview that your source links to at https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/urban-versus-rural-carbon-emissions
This is a great example of why secondary sources shouldn't be trusted without verifying what they say. The author of the article you linked clearly misunderstood the interview. What the professor is saying is exactly what my municipality found: that even if people living in rural areas have higher transport emissions in their day-to-day life, a single trip abroad by plane may produce as much emissions as a full year of traveling to work by car. The direct transportation emissions in rural areas are completely offset by higher consumption and overhead emissions in cities.
Technically you can only learn history since everything we know happened in the past.