If I had to guess, it would be because that's exactly the environment and process that consumers will use, so it would capture variables such as "what if the probiotic was out-competed by a bacteria living on your mug?"
And then I would assume the sterile transfer was to preserve this state of the tea as-made without changing it on the way to the lab.
This makes sense. Even if you're not going to drink the tea in the office, even the appearance of making food in a lab space might well be enough hassle that it's easier to just bring sampling equipment home.
> believe deportation is morally wrong in certain cases, that is, the law can be selectively broken.
Except that that author didn't say that at all. They said "deport only the lawbreakers", while expressing dismay at a blogpost which (apparently*) said "deport everyone".
> I personally believe laws should always be enforced and followed.
Quote from TFA: "Any kind of mass deportation plan would have to change [the law], which would be legally tricky to say the least. However, enforcing the existing laws requires no legal action, and could start tomorrow if the relevant executive wanted it to."
*Other comments have argued that the post didn't actually say that.
To establish oneself in a country (for the majority if not all the western world) without an appropriate visa is already breaking the law.
Not saying this is the only way, or what should be - but it's what it is, selectively breaking the law is ok - "as long as they behave". It implies that immigrants must live in the limbo and under undue psychological pressure, knowing one day their whole life may be uprooted for any transgression (or even none). This to me is some medieval mindset.
He also means Danish citizens who might be second or third generations Danish but came from background he doesn't like. Oh and of course you can see it - their skin.
That isn't entirely accurate. They at least need enough domain knowledge to tell if an expert witnesses is bullshitting them. Or to understand the jargon being used.
I thought it was obvious but I'll spell it out. Businesses do what's good for the business. Often, happily, that turns out to be to the benefit of consumers. But that is never the objective. Businesses take anti-consumer decisions every day with no qualms when it serves them.
"Pro business is pro business" was my reply to your naive "Pro business is pro consumer" declaration of faith.
My second sentence clarified that my first sentence carried no judgement of businesses. That's just their nature, it's what they do.
Right. That's what actually buys you the politician. Being able to promise "Pass this regulation for us and we'll make sure you are set up for life, since we know it's politically unfavorable"
the ~$2M just gets your foot in the door, that's it.
That's the real evil. Once a super PAC has enough money, they don't even have to spend it. The threat alone is enough to get most Congress people back in line.
> I’m shitting on people who are praising China for being the #1 emitter
Largest country in the world is the largest emitter. Quelle surprise. Does Vatican City get a prize for being the smallest emitter?
> long after the west realized how bad climate change was and was trying to correct them.
The West led by the US whose adminstration currently denies the existence of climate change? Whose emissions drop was due to the fracking boom and natural gas becoming cheaper than coal? Let's not break our arms patting ourselves on the back. If fracking hadn't been invented how much coal would the US be burning today?
China burns coal because they have coal. If they had natural gas their emissions would be lower too. They know coal is bad and as you've admitted yourself, their coal use is down in 2025. It's projected to decrease even further by 2035.
They're deploying solar and wind and nuclear at a never-seen-before pace. Their factories produce plentiful cheap panels and batteries and EVs that the rest of the world can use to decarbonize - so at least there's a point to "the highest emissions in the world". The US is approving data centers with on-site gas turbines, and paying off windmill operators to shut down.
They are not the same.
> it’s very clear China optimized for its own citizens
Every country is supposed to do that. The current US administration is acting against its citizens' interests with its crusade against solar and wind energy.
> in the face of the west trying to grapple with climate change
How is the west doing that? All I see are more SUVs and people protesting solar generation facilities in the country and calling renewable energy and bike lanes "woke" or some nonsense.
> [China] is only now showing some signs of pivot with solar being cheap enough.
Who made solar so cheap, I wonder? Was it an accident or part of multiple 5-year plans that anyone can read?
And "some signs" is possibly the biggest understatement I've seen all year. They install more solar than the rest of the world combined.
Please, please re-examine your biases. Stop repeating the same conservative media lies. Start looking at the data objectively.
>Does Vatican City get a prize for being the smallest emitter?
Nope, because they are irrelevant in the scheme of sources of CO2. Tons emitted is all that matters.
>The West led by the US whose adminstration currently denies the existence of climate change? Whose emissions drop was due to the fracking boom and natural gas becoming cheaper than coal? Let's not break our arms patting ourselves on the back. If fracking hadn't been invented how much coal would the US be burning?
The west, as in Europe (and the US before Trump) who began all of the initiatives to track CO2, the impacts of global warming, clean energy alternatives, etc. All of the solar tech that China is deploying today is paid for by the hundreds of failed startups pushing the technology forward in the 2000-2012 era.
>China burns coal because they have coal.
That’s not an excuse. Australia gets a middle finger as well for because they have a shitload of coal and also take the attitude of “we might as well burn it since we have it”. That’s literally the opposite of being proactive.
If you only build renewable to deal with a shortage of fossil fuels, then you’re not addressing global warming. You’re just doing the very normal economic incentive thing.
>Their factories produce panels and batteries and EVs that the rest of the world can use to decarbonize - so at least there's a point to "the highest emissions in the world".
Depends on how dirty the energy is for those. If more emissions come from manufacture and transport than are saved by the panel+storage, it would have been better for the recipient to burn fossil fuels.
>The US is approving data centers with on-site gas turbines, and paying off windmill operators to shut down.
Yes, it’s disgusting and everyone in the Bay Area that used to pretend about global
warming who is now working for companies expanding for AI can get fucked.
>They are not the same.
They are not, but holy shit China is also terrible. The difference is that China has a track record of destruction over the last 25 years while climatologists screamed from the rooftops. It’s going to take 15 years even at their ambitious pace to unwind the expansion of emissions in the last 15. That’s the problem with climate change, it doesn’t matter if you increase solar production until you actually get rid of the coal burning.
> Nope, because they are irrelevant in the scheme of sources of CO2. Tons emitted is all that matters.
So if China split up into 200 countries, they are irrelevant? The US and Europe are ahead in cumulative emissions even today. If "tons emitted is all that matters" then that's who is the most responsible. All the carbon is still in the atmosphere.
> If you only build renewable to deal with a shortage of fossil fuels, then you’re not addressing global warming.
Why the heck not? Whatever happened to "tons emitted is all that matters"? Who cares why you build renewables as long as you build them?
> You’re just doing the very normal economic incentive thing.
The US reduces emissions because natural gas is cheaper - "The West took steps to fight climate change". China goes solar because it's cheaper - "Well they're just looking out for #1, they don't really care about the environment".
Bit of a double standard there, no?
> All of the solar tech that China is deploying today is paid for by the hundreds of failed startups pushing the technology forward in the 2000-2012 era.
Really they produced panels that cheap in 2012? I didn't see them. And China has produced zero innovations in solar tech or battery tech?
> Australia gets a middle finger as well for because they have a shitload of coal
You mean the highest per-capita deployer of solar energy today? In your worldview it seems countries are only allowed economic development on your terms that you've set because they make you look better than everyone else.
> If more emissions come from manufacture and transport than are saved by the panel+storage, it would have been better for the recipient to burn fossil fuels.
Fortunately fictional hypotheticals don't happen, so it's all good. You speak as though producing and transporting fossil fuels is emissions-free.
> China is also terrible. The difference is that China has a track record of destruction over the last 25 years
And "The West" has a much longer track record than that. Again we see your bias. No one is without blame but you seem eager to assign disproportionate blame to one country because of this bias.
> while climatologists screamed from the rooftops
And US voters gleefully voted in multiple climate change denying administrations.
> That’s the problem with climate change, it doesn’t matter if you increase solar production until you actually get rid of the coal burning.
The difference is that China is realistically on a path to end coal burning. The US is not currently on track to stop burning natural gas and gasoline, given its refusal to consider, indeed its active sabotage of, alternatives.
My intuition tells me most people can't put down whiskey like they can beer. My guess is both of these are actual relevant things that affect behaviors, but I have no idea which is stronger.
reply