If you have a good source for something that says otherwise, I'd be genuinely interested to see it. Not that I would probably change my opinion on renewables, since I personally think cutting pollution of the air I breathe is worth paying a little extra for, but I like to be informed nonetheless.

(and I am ignorant about DK, so...)

Diluting salty rotting fish sauce in seawater is a lot more defensible. It's not like they'd have to just dump it all in one spot.

You should see what they do in the UK. Looks tasty, but healthy it certainly is not.

I'm 100% with Sarah McBride on this. The blame for this culture war is arguably as much because of how pro-trans folks handled it as it is resistance from conservatives. It did not need to happen this way. There will be progress in the future but it definitely got set back a ways over the last few years. Unfortunately with collateral damage for the rest of the LGBT community.

That seems orthogonal, yes? Delaying puberty until the body gets into the usual range of growth is arguably improving something that was otherwise going off the rails. Delaying puberty from normal onset until after the body has otherwise stopped growing is a different use case, different intended goal. It does not seem unreasonable to have different expectations.

I like the way you think. Putting a meaningful amount of capacity in something luggable by an average human would open up a lot of possibilities. Not just for cars, but everything. Our battery powered future looks bright already, but this would be incredible.

I would be interested to know what the actual rate of sperm count decline is, controlling for age and such.

Edit: This is good reading, I think, though dense: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6455044/

Rates are down quite a bit in the last 50 years, about half. But extrapolating to zero in 50 more years is a stretch. Average is something like 40-50 million/mL, which is above the 15 million threshold considered normal, but does mean an increasing number of people are falling below that threshold. So yes there is going to be an impact, extinction seems highly unlikely however.

EVs spontaneously igniting are newsworthy partly because politics, but also because it is novel. Gas vehicles burn daily, the odds are pretty good that a couple are burning somewhere right now.

I believe it is becoming fairly common to use batteries as a buffer at fast chargers. The demand charges for bursting megawatts of power from the grid are apparently really steep, so it makes sense to put in a big battery and steadily draw a lower amount of power and then just charge cars from the battery.

I think you're underselling it, even. A typical like-for-like modern EV is only marginally heavier than the ICE equivalent. If we were able to drop the weight of the battery by a thousand pounds, cars would be lighter than they have been in decades while retaining all the modern safety and convenience features we've come to expect. And if density improved along with weight, we could make EVs with the same form factor as today but with over a thousand miles of range. Not that we need that, but it is just as a tiny example of how mind boggling the game change would be.

As it is I've only recently internalized the notion that the most powerful electric tools are battery powered (what can I say, I grew up when rechargeable batteries were NiCad and they basically sucked). And it will just get better and better as time goes on.

You must have misunderstood the assertion, then. I will attempt to clarify.

- Australia tried to get rid of guns, still has millions. Several hundred thousand of them illegal.

- Australia has a much lower firearms homicide rate, despite still having quite a lot of guns. Not the same ratio as the US, sure, but 4.5M guns for 28M people is still fairly prevalent and available.

- So the rate 1:50 ratio is not easily explained by simply reducing the number of guns in circulation. Something else is going on. Something harder to solve, even, than the second amendment.