The fuel vs food issue is a well known problem in first generation biofuel, has been for years. It’s sad to read they’re still being developed and encouraged.
There are standards, either in draft or already in place, to encourage biofuel made from second generation feedstock: sources that are not suitable for human consumption, such as agricultural and municipal wastes, waste oils, and algae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-generation_biofuels
Has COP30 ignored all of that?!
the company plans to place its mining waste into the fjord in a controlled manner to limit the dispersal of harmful residue
The company should try placing its mining waste into the CEO’s pool in a controlled manner to limit the dispersal of harmful residue.
Gotta support alternatives such as Peertube, Nebula… so there are nice places to find videos as YouTube becomes worse and worse.
Von der Leyen demonstrate how to quickly lose credibility on protecting the environment.
Soon she’ll tell she wants to fight forest fires without reducing the amount of gas being poured on forests by arsonists.
Fujita thinks the protective, spongy casing surrounding the spores may help defend against UV light and dehydration.
According to this article, they’re just speculating at this point why spores survived. Next step could be to confirm why spores survived. If that’s a form of shielding, then run tests to check if a layer a spore would be a more effective shield than existing matetials. If it is, look for a practical way to use it.
And then Microsoft gets annoyed when people don’t immediately start using Win 10, then Win 11.
Seeing the results, it looks like earlier versions had more QA done before the release, whereas nowaday a bigger part of QA is done by customers after the release.
If you understand the security implications, you probably won’t enable it.
Would this be reciprocal?
Protecting the identity of members make sense. If that org is fighting bad actors engaged in CSAM and child abuse, they’d want to shield themselves from harrasment and retaliation.
What’s most shady is the tactic, asking third party to block archive.is when they apparently didn’t ask achive.is themselves to remove the content.
The sad thing is you paid to get a car with a TCU, then paid a mechnic to remove it. Assuming you’re not a mechnic/hobbist yourself.
It’s good that Mozilla is shaming car companies and shining a spotlight on the issue. Journalists need to ask about tracking and privacy when a new car model comes out. Buyer should ask sellers the same.
You may be right, but I don’t see how that change the calculus. Should employees and union be complacent with corps’ bad and potentially illegal actions (firing for being in an union is not legal in some areas), refuse to defend colleagues, just to avoid hurting the corporation pride?
Anyway, we’ll probably hear more soon, and will see how this play out.
R* should have thought of that before doing union busting. Now management is left with bad options and have to decide which option is least bad, for instance admitting they were wrong, or let the situation decay further and potentially escalate the fight against their own workforce.
The more AI is being pushed into my face, the more it pisses me off.
Mozilla could have made an extension and promote it on their extension store. Rather than adding cruft to their browser and turning it on by default.
The list of things to turn off to get a pleasant experience in Firefox is getting longer by the day. Not as bad as chrome, but still.
They also moved to do away with the European civil liability regime, which served to harmonise firms’ obligations in the event of breaches, referring to national legislation instead.
So replacing 1 European civil liability regime by 27 different ones, one for each member nation.
I don’t see how that reduces red tape.
That’s a great ad for anyone selling pools.
It’s both, and not a small amount of bytes.
Adblocking is a more efficient way to make adversiting unprofitable, as it avoid wasting both yours’ and adtech’s bandwidth.
Wasting resources isn’t a great strategy, even if someone else is paying for it.
Not satisfied with polluting earth with resource-hungry data centers, Google is looking into polluting earth’s orbit.
I don’t see how COPs can decide to fight climate change BY CONSENSUS. Parties include petrostates doing all they can to keep producing and burning fossil fuel, even if that mean derailing efforts to fight climate change.
An interesting option is the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty https://fossilfueltreaty.org/european-parliament-2023
It would be voluntary but would facilitate the enforcment of carbon tariffs, or carbon import tax, to be applied collectively against states that don’t participate and pollute the most.