but when is the exact point of “how they were” when 4000 years of erosion has already taken place?
but when is the exact point of “how they were” when 4000 years of erosion has already taken place?
historical conservation isn’t really this cut and dry
sometimes it’s better to restore things, or to do work to prevent them degrading further
that’s not boobs that’s boob
It takes a certain amount of energy for water to exist as water, a certain amount of energy for oxygen to exist as oxygen, and a certain amount of energy for hydrogen to exist as hydrogen
The amount of energy it takes for water to keep being water is less than the sum total of the energy it takes for oxygen and hydrogen to keep being themselves.
When you burn hydrogen, it combines with oxygen in the air and makes water. But that requires less energy to exist, so where does the excess energy go? It’s released as heat.
To split water back into hydrogen and oxygen, you have to re-add that same amount of energy again.
Hydrogen as a fuel isn’t so much a source of energy as a store of energy. A battery doesn’t make energy. You charge it with energy so that you can retrieve that energy later. Similarly, a big power plant electrolyses a bunch of water and makes a bunch of hydrogen. Later, you can use that hydrogen in your car without having to be connected to the big power plant that made it.
this is all probably largely wrong and you should ignore it
The controlled demolition of Israa University makes it pretty obvious that it’s a goal.
I think we can all agree whatever claims you want to make about how it was secretly a training camp don’t really matter, right? If you’re in control of a building enough to go in and plant explosive charges, I think you might be in control of it enough to stop it being used as a training camp.
What’s an alternative that features the presents-giving at the same time of year
Festivus is explicitly non-commercial
It was basically an aeroplane flying with dead pilots before then
aren’t we all
And “the highest price before it’s too expensive and loss of sales cuts into revenue” is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly. Meaning the “highest cost” is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly.
As an addendum, you haven’t really mentioned anything past a vague idea of “maximum cost” until now, so I’m not really sure what you mean about repeating yourself. Are you okay, friend?
So “highest cost” isn’t set by “what the consumer is able to spend”? So what’s it set by?
if that’s how you want to define “highest cost”, then goods absolutely aren’t priced at highest cost in a duopoly
they aren’t even priced at highest cost in a monopoly, because “all the money a person has” is just cartoon logic
I don’t know what this means
The “highest cost possible” is higher in a monopoly than a duopoly.
My point being that while a duopoly may seem like a worst case scenario, it very much isn’t.
beats out the brick and mortar store**s**
???
Yes I’m sure the prices will be the same after there’s absolutely no competition at all.
just wait for the reaming you’ll get when everybody but amazon goes out of business in your country
They were arrested and jailed.
as a disclaimer, i don’t think i really know enough about the situation to comment on it holistically
that said, if a state wants to find a justification to convict somebody, it can find it
i don’t think that, in a war between two states, trusting what an instrument of one state says about an instrument of another is justification by itself
it’s crazy that they’re making a crop top and short shorts mandatory dress code for all students
*implicitly comparing the treatment of Jews during the holocaust to the treatment of cattle today
also, you can compare two things without equating them
I think if you actually cared about the words you wrote, you wouldn’t have used them as the basis of a lazy strawman to win an argument on the internet against veganism
ahem actually people only need to exist and survive until they work themselves to death getting tangled in the gears of my spinning jennys