Because this is how research works and if we manage to get fusion power generation working well, we’ll have practically limitless clean energy available.

Fair enough (even though I could pick some nits concerning ionic (de)polarization and chemical signaling, all driven by various redox reactions and powered by aforementioned hydrocarbon oxidation).

In actuality, nearly nothing in the universe seems to be powered by electricity. Gravity powered fusion drives the stars, radioactive decay (fission) and gravity drive planetary activity, chemical (including photochemical) reactions drive life. Electrical current flow happens naturally, but it doesn’t seem like a big driving phenomenon.

Not to say that we shouldn’t use electric cars, or really electric everything. We should! It’s just that the OPs argument was dumb.

Your body runs on oxidation of hydrocarbons and generates CO2 exhaust, like an ICE engine.

In Cuba the old cars are meticulously maintained, though. In the US it will be all rusty old death traps.

[Seriously though, the bad economy is already turning the roads into this. The number of frighteningly unmaintained and crashed-but-not-repaired cars is noticeably increasing lately.]

Any problem is solvable with unlimited energy at your disposal. Protons are charged so you divert them with an electric field. If you’re using a ramjet for propulsion, you collect them to fuse. The incoming velocity could be a benefit there.

We opted for natural childbirth and my husband chewed through the umbilical cord to sever it.

The lesser-of-two-evil choice only makes sense when you’re using it to avoid a singular looming catastrophe. When it describes every election, people disengage from that process instead of actively voting for “evil” over and over again.

True. As much as I hate to admit it, the Windows phones were actually pretty good.

Had they not botched app adoption and then immediately given up, they could have done fairly well.

Two points of contention:

1. Hunting for sport isn’t ethical in any form. There’s no way to say that killing for fun is an ethical activity. Which is not to say that hunting is unethical, even if you have other sources of food available, as long as you (or somebody) are eating what you kill.
2. If you’re going to kill for food, it’s most ethical to do it in the most painless way possible. I would argue that this assertion makes hunting more ethical than most modern forms of farming. But making things more “sporting” isn’t ethical if you start using tools or methods that you’re not skilled with (and likely to wound or maim instead of cleanly killing). If you’re killing something to eat it, don’t torture and play with it, just kill it.

Except when affect is a noun (disposition or emotion) and effect is a verb (to bring about or make happen).

Just to make things more difficult. :)

It might even be worth not filing to dismiss the suit just to get to discovery and see what juicy newsworthy nuggets float up.

“I’m sorry, the best we can do is campaigning on status quo, everything is fine, at least I’m not Trump. What are you going to do, vote for a third party and throw your vote away?”

Not very well documented, that one.

If Trump was a foreign asset, would he have done anything differently?

For real. Thermal regulation of spacecraft is a problem that current, non-data center, satellites are struggling with and increasing the load by orders of magnitude isn’t going to make things easier. You can easily calculate the area needed for radiative heat transfer for a perfect radiator and you quickly end up with some gargantuan panels. Perfect radiators are also perfect absorbers, so the whole system goes to shit if the panel isn’t facing deep space.

Harm reduction is typified by an actual reduction in harm. I think the illness you’re looking for is Stockholm Syndrome

Thank you for the example of Dems demanding your vote without offering anything in return. If you don’t like how they don’t represent you, the choices they offer are voting for them anyway or overthrowing the government.

Maybe I’m just being hopeful, but I don’t think the vagina thing is as big of an influence as it seems. First, we only have a sample size of two.

One of them, Clinton, was just an objectively awful person. She wasn’t popular with anyone, including women.

The second, Harris, had an abbreviated campaign caused by Biden’s unwillingness to step down. She also wasn’t built up in preparation fora campaign during her VP term. On top of that, she was very unexciting policy-wise. Basically status quo when everybody is clamoring for progress.

Contrast that with Obama, who ran on “hope and change” and got people excited for actual progress. Which he didn’t deliver, but that’s another story.

I also ANAL, but I did take a contract law class in college and this is a textbook case. If it actually happened. And depending on how the “offer” was worded.

A working class hero and a cop? I’m so confused.