I do not. This was the interviewer’s experience through conversations, not a rigorous scientific study I think.

I listened to an interview with a woman who researched aging and spent time interviewing lots of elderly people. The majority of those interviewed called their 60s the best decade of their life. I also dislike the myth that your youth was your peak and it’s all downhill from there. There’s good in all times of your life, lean into the experiences that are available at the time and don’t worry about how good the past was or how the future might be worse.

I only eat drowned Oreos too.

Easy, kings side bishop red carpet promenade

It is a politically savvy and ethically correct move. Really nice when those line up.

The argument I’m making is that we should not call them chemicals when they don’t have the capacity to make chemical reactions.

An analogy could be how we use the word weed. We call unwanted plants weeds. If there is mint growing in your yard and you don’t want it, it’s a weed. If you sell your house and the next owner likes it that mint is not a weed anymore. It’s still mint (element) but no longer a weed (chemical).

You make a good point. I should have said “things in the plasma state” should not be considered chemicals.

Hydrogen and Helium are elements, I guess it depends on what your definition of a chemical is.

The reason I’m saying plasma is not a chemical is because it is too energetic to make atom to atom bonds which I feel is the basis for chemistry. If something cannot interact chemically I feel we should not consider it a chemical.

Please note that I did not look up any formal definitions, just expressing my reasoning for my argument. (Aka I’m probably wrong).

I think plasma isn’t a chemical since the elements can’t form molecules. So the sun and lightning aren’t chemicals.

Hard to tell if this is a proposal to fight over hardware or an offer for free stuff.

I choose to believe the former because it makes me chuckle more.

Can someone provide a summary on what this means? I thought there were malicious exploits in this. Why is it back up and the perpetrator unbanned?

It will be rejected because Israel justifiably does not want Hamas to exist.

Israel will also use this to unjustifiably reject it to proceed with a genocide on civilians not affiliated with Hamas.

I don’t think the DC to DC conversion was adequately discussed in this article. If you were to implement a parallel DC and AC system in your home, you would need all of your DC devices to run on the same voltage, or you would need to convert them from the supply voltage to the useable voltage. The most efficient way to do a DC to DC conversion requires converting to AC to change the voltage, then converting the new voltage back to DC. If your goal is to reduce losses, these conversions would be much more efficient if you started with an AC source.

The only time you have big efficiency gains is when you’re supplying the exact DC voltage required by the device. In a practical house this would mean having a few different DC feeds all at different voltages. That means more cabling and more electrical protection equipment per voltage.

I love the idea that we have a DC source and DC devices, why go to AC in-between? It’s a compelling thought, but the reason is it’s a good general system that is robust and pretty efficient independent of individual situations. Can you make a more optimized system per house taking into account the amount of energy it took to extract the metal for the additional wires and the savings on each conversion device? Yes, of course. Is it practical on a large scale? I don’t think so.