So they were pushed back to South America once, why can't they be pushed back again? How'd they get past Panama if there's a sterile fly production/release facility there?

I agree, what's the problem?

Okay... seems like you need some help. Commentors are suggesting that it wasn't Luigi because they don't want him imprisioned or executed if he's found guilty. That's why people are claiming "Luigi was hanging out with me during the murder" or "that's not Luigi in the photos, eyebrows don't match" and etc. Even if you disagree with those statements, you should play along if you think Luigi is a hero of sorts.

Is that not true for LFP?

Another reason Slate went with NMC was its superior energy density. LFP packs are durable, known for their fast-charging abilities and use cheaper raw materials. But an NMC pack that takes up the same amount of space will generally deliver more range.

Aside from energy density, what other pros/cons do NMC batteries have? Also how much more energy can they store per unit volume than LFP?

This may answer your question. I've read that the only way to continue making a profit, aka be better off than the laboring masses, is to use human labor power to produce products/services. Why? Because if a process is automated, the process's rate of profit will eventually fall to zero. Why? Competition with other businesses that automate will drive the price down as low as it can go (unless of course there's collusion or a monopoly is allowed to exist).

Put another way, in order to make money, you need to be able to pay your labor less than the value of whatever they're producing. If the whole process is automated, there's no one to pay at all, which is amazing for a hot second, but once another business copies and undercuts you, you need to lower your price to match theirs. Then a third person copies and undercuts you both, and before you know it you're not making any money because everyone is selling a fraction of a cent above cost.

Bah, you're assuming they'll follow existing laws of property ownership. Wealth, aka means of accomplishing goals, will be available to those that need it.

I agree, that is the probable reaction, but the working class will have more and more leverage the smaller the class gets.

That video changed your perspective? It was entirely full of assumptions. Yeah, sure, if things continue as they are now and nothing changes, then economic issues will ensue. HOWEVER, things will change, societies will react and adapt to the evolving situation. So all the doom and gloom predicted in that video is just that, a shit prediction based on shit assumptions.

What do you think would come next, after the USD loses its reserve status?

Sooo... do you think you don't have any duty to your fellow humans?

These are not easy questions for the average person to answer, and I'm woefully average. I'm going to take the lazy approach and refer you to a real philosopher. Look up Peter Singer. If you have further questions, then I'd recommend starting from the ground up in a philosophy 101 course, maybe sprinkle some religious studies in there, and don't forget eastern philosophy/religion. That should bring you up to speed.

Oh you must be new to Earth. Welcome! So humans have been doing this thing called reciprocity, which is a mutual or cooperative interchange of favors or privileges. That means if you help someone, they're likely to help you when you're in need.

To bet against the future on this scale – to bank on your bunker – is to betray, on the most basic level, our duties to one another, to the children we love, and to every other life form with whom we share a planetary home.

I'd say we have the general duty to help those in need since we're living on the same planet. This idea of escapism, that I can build a bunker and hide from the poor destitute masses until they die off, is morally reprehensible. We have a duty to 1) not do that and 2) work together to limit, mitigate, and possibly reverse the damages of climate change so life is alright for the maximum number of people.

How's that sound to you?

Do note that CCS to NACS adapters should only be used on a supercharger, never on an AC charger.

Thank you, I did not know that.

Okay, so let's pretend the a zygote is an incest zygote

Nope, I'm out. Bye

Okay no, that's not how it works at all. The differences in DNA between cancer cell and non-cancerous cell are negligable when compared to the differences between mother DNA and zygote/fetal DNA. If those fetal cells escaped the placenta or uterus, the mother's immune system would attack them because they're not recognized as "self."

Sure, it's the mother's egg, until it isn't. It quickly becomes something else biologically at the moment of fertilization.

Again, the mother isn't making the cells, the zygote/fetal cells are making themselves.

It's clear you have some beliefs that are not backed up by science. You also did not understand my analogies. I'm sure you'll eventually learn this stuff in school.

If you really want to get pedantic, you could say we inherit our first cell membrane and mitochindria from our mothers, 50% of our genetic material, and perhaps 95% of our first cell's cytoplasm.

After that, our mothers provide material that the zygote/fetus uses to build itself. It sounds incorrect to say we get all our cells from our mother, since she's not making the cells, but only providing material and a place to grow. I know what you mean and share your sentiment. When gardening, did I grow these plants or did they grow themselves? Did the workers build the car, or did the owner of the factory?

Also the info provided by the father is absolutely biological material.

Yeah... I really don't think that analogy fits this situation. Actually that's really funny since the fundies on lemmygrad would absolutly agree with you that ACAB.

Okay great, we agree on the first quote. Why'd you use Germany as an example instead of Russia?

Second point. You think Russia is super sneaky or something? If they were, then how'd they lose Ukraine and had to invade? They're clearly lacking when compared to the West.

Third point, yeah, I'm serious. Russia won't attack NATO. They clearly don't want to fight NATO, hence preventing countries within their sphere of influence from joining NATO. Russia would get wrecked even if they somehow won. It's not worth it and if NATO was somehow weak enough that Russia could win, then they wouldn't need to fight. They could coerce/incentivize without invading.