StringJunky

Hi Isabelle, you will need to show what you know about this question and where you are stuck.

Thanks.

If you expose frozen chips to air, more moisture will condense on the chips from it. Every ml of water condensed from the air adds 1g to the chips.. The chips, after baking, lose moisture, which concentrates the calories, so if you now weigh 100g of baked chips there are more calories.

It doesn't just pinpoint the page but may show the desired contents on the search. If I put "pounds to dollars" in Google an inputable convertor app will show directly on the page first, then lists other conversion websites. These are just examples of the pernicious takeover of information and services by these companies. I can't even tell what a sponsored ad is anymore on their search pages... this shit runs deep.

If the actual information you seek is in a snippet on the search page, will that reduce the potential traffic to that site a person intended to visit? If a dictionary definition is searched for and it's there on the search page, is the dictionary website put out of pocket?

All free sites generally rely on ad revenue, and the likes of Google prevents that exposure by removing the need for searchers to go to a particular site.

Just seen the video of Fauci. Nice to see him happy, after being sidelined for so long. Makes me realise better how damaging Trump and crew were.

Unless the FAANG groups create the news infoirmation, it will be much reduced. As you say, there would need to be a new system. With the transfer from B&M sales to online sales, the goods are still available... would it be in this scenario i.e. would the same level/variety of news be available? My feeling is they will bias the news to subjects that are the most viral and lucrative... as they do now.

Fauci: TFFT.

Google isn't just a search engine, it collects and monetizes information, just as the other big names do. They are all in exactly the same game. Whether they are a "search engine" or "social media site", it is just a front to that goal. If they are complicit in harming the financial health of media/information creation sites, they need to pay for it. If they starve those original content entities of income they will have to create the news... even more monopoly. In that direction lies commercial tryanny.

With McConnell saying he thinks he's guilty of provoking insurrection may mean there is sufficient support to prevent Trump ever taking public office again.Let us note that it is only some of the actors of this current Republican administration that caused the problems. Any ruling party needs an effective opposition as a counterweight, or ahead lies tyranny... and that includes the Democrats.

Could it be anything to do with the eustachian tube that runs from the mouth to inner ear to equalise pressure. You altering your breathing and holding your breathe will alter the internal pressure. Also, hardened ear wax.

Yes, this is the kind of rationale that properly answers your question. +1

It never stopped me. As you've seen in that image, microwaves are so far away from uv in energy terms, and that's where the danger starts.

iNow, the obvious response is going to be a negative one, is it not. This is how already-polarising discussions fall apart into acrimony.

Look at this EM chart: Wifi. and mobile wavelengths are around 3metres long and the lowest level of ionizing radiation is just into the uv range many, many times shorter. Look where visible light is, I don't think that causes ionizing radiation, so how can microwaves cause the purported issues if ionization starts and increases to the right of the uv segment?

You need to support that.

You have to be wary of researchers that persistently seem to point to one view, across several papers, because, ultimately, a researcher shouldn't care about the outcome, only that it was done with integrity towards the scientific method. When you read unbiased scientific papers they are usually very measured in their comments with a healthy dose of uncertainty in their conclusions. I feel he has an agenda.

I'll go along with that, but doing it is another matter because both sides of the legal teams have an interest in supporting their client.

You are arguing that the content of his assertion is not true? I can't support that his quote is exactly correct verbatim but the general assertion is, I think... if my memory is to be trusted.

That is a perfectly reasonable expectation. It's not about faith, a case is about evidence...essentially, both the complainant and defendant are under scrutiny. There's no way, I can see, of escaping it, unless one of them capitulates their position.

I find it offensive too, that the law is expected by some here to pre-favour the testimony of one over the other. That's not how justice works, which is to treat people equal under the law, until the jury decides who is telling the truth.

This may have been his interpretation of what was said, but it was said in a way that made one think that. I also remember this conversation didn't go well....

Yes, he conceived the CC to solve his own mathematical issue and abandoned it, but I think it was later found to be needed to solve another problem.