As common a tactic as it is, it's not actually a denial of the allegations.
It's an accusation of "Everyone does it, but they're targeting me! Not fair!"
It certainly is; Otherwise that derogatory comment itself would be illegal.
I think you may have an unworkable concept of what "solving" the plastic problem means, when you can't tell the difference between a film and a bottle. Both of which have largely phased out BPA already.
They were both started in Feb 2023. So there isn't a long track record to go by.
In the last 12 months.
NANC has gained 40%.
KRUZ has gained 27%.
VTSAX has gained 33.8%. (Vanguard total stock index)
They both have expense ratios of 0.75%.
VTSAX is 0.04%.
So you loose nearly 1% each year in management fees. That's a lot.
That's a temporary problem. One solved by the renewable energy transition already underway.
It's not. It's a thin plastic film. One that doesn't get into the environment at nearly the rate, since the aluminum is actually worth recycling.
It does seem that way.
I guess I'm not sure what problem you're talking about.
Yah, that's not how they are recycled. That gets burned off by the temps required to melt the aluminum.
Liquid helium is -269 °C. There is no risk of confusing it with what's in balloons.
Not sure what you mean by dissolving. As far as so know aluminum gets melted down. Any plastic, inks, or other impurities get burned off generally.
Cans.
Cans are actually recyclable containers, that fix most of the environmental problems of plastic bottles.
They've had resealable "bottle like" cans for a decade or more already.
Fountain drinks can use the same CO2 they already have, to pressurize cans of concentrate to pump the syrup to the fountain head.
True. I don't know how much that is. But liquid helium shouldn't be "medical grade" really. It's just a coolant for the superconducting magnets, same as any industrial use.
Who would've thought the guy who gave us a tour of "his" apartment, he'd clearly never been to before, has a history of fraud?
I'm just an XRay tech. But I would expect at least one whole day, for a pair of engineers to get it running again and re-certified. $20-50K for their time, plus missed revenue from the lost day. Best case could total $100K easy. Way more, if the damage is more than cosmetic.
Not sure what he's talking about.
Just describing what's in it, does all the "branding".
What could they have done to rebrand what it literally says?
I Do! I'd spend hundreds for it.
Could do all sorts of things with it!
Accept donations for all the groups Inforwars insulted or hurt in any way.
For yucks, put up a poll for how terrible a person Alex Jones is.
Add a form for recommendations on other fun things to with the site.
It seems easy to argue liter is part of environmental concerns and policy. Environment is a very flexible term.
On the other hand, I like fun.
Think like what? Think this is just one small pice. Small enough that it almost doesn't matter, and shouldn't take any energy or news inches from the larger problem of plastic packaging? Because honestly, it sounds like we're on the same page there.
Also plastics aren't much of a climate issue. They're part of a more broad environmental issue.
Lawsuit: SpaceX took over "pristine" land CAH bought to stop Trump border wall.
Kagi AI summery: Cards Against Humanity (CAH) is suing SpaceX for allegedly taking over a plot of land on the US/Mexico border that CAH purchased in 2017 to prevent the construction of Trump's border wall. CAH claims it maintained the land but SpaceX later moved construction equipment and materials onto the property without permission. The lawsuit seeks up to $15 million in damages to restore the land and cover losses, and also requests punitive damages. CAH says SpaceX never asked for permission to use the property and never apologized for the damage. The lawsuit includes before and after photos purporting to show SpaceX's use of the land.
And CAH's website all about it
Google search is in the news.
Kagi AI Summary: The document discusses the recent court ruling that Google's search business is a monopoly. It explains Google's search architecture, including the search index, search engine, and advertising business, and how this has created a powerful self-reinforcing cycle. While Google has innovated and provided valuable services, the document argues the ad-based model has led to misaligned incentives and harm to users through biased and low-quality search results. To address this, the document proposes treating Google's search index as an essential facility, allowing fair access and enabling more diverse search experiences and business models. This could foster innovation, competition, and better outcomes for consumers without attacking Google's core business.
