Maybe because "We propose burying this device beneath the Kerguelen Plateau in the Southern Ocean, 3-5 km into the basalt-rich seafloor and 6-8 km below the water’s surface." would be prohibitively expensive for hundreds of nukes.
The nukes just laying around in stockpiles are mostly in the 100-800kT range. You could use nukes that would otherwise need refurbishment (exploding old stockpiles and producing new stock instead of refurbishing old stock), or maybe even spin it as a disarmament treaty where the method of disposal are underground explosions for carbon sequestration. Or use it as an opportunity to use old nukes for a good purpose when you want to switch to a newer model (instead of needing facilities to disassemble them)
The point would be experimentation. You do a small one, measure the results, and if it aligns with theoretical predictions, you scale up. It transforms it from high risk and high reward, into low risk high reward.
A study of sixteen people...
Also this site is awful and wouldn't let me right click to copy the text.
Edit: Here's a link to the study from a better source. Also, this study unsurprisingly brought to you by the beef industry.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002231662...
"This study was funded in part by The Beef Checkoff, Denver, USA,"
Attacking study sample size without regard to the effect size is not helpful. A study of 16 can be more than enough to provide a statistically significant result if the effect is large enough.
In Firefox's about:config switch dom.event.contextmenu.enabled to false to always allow right click. Though it is a bit unnerving on sites with custom right click menus, like discord or google docs.
"There are complex reasons for our dire wildfires, but scientists say climate change plays key role" [0]
"Our forest management practices, they've been like this since about the '80s. So why is it we're seeing the bad fire seasons now? It's because the weather has gotten more extreme."
"Bill C-18 has become law and remains unworkable. The Government has not given us reason to believe that the regulatory process will be able to resolve structural issues with the legislation. As a result, we have informed the Government that we have made the difficult decision that when the law takes effect we will be removing links to Canadian news from our Search, News, and Discover products and will no longer be able to operate Google News Showcase in Canada. Read our blog and consult our FAQ to learn more."
There might be some other people out there like me with school age kids. I find that my kids schools and the various PAC (parents advisory committee) groups all use Facebook to communicate. So I have to be on there if want info and to be connected with other parents. I hate Facebook but for this purpose it is actually quite useful. Similarly, I am in a neighbourhood group and there is a certain amount of nimby/busybody type posts but it can also be great for knowing what is going on in the neighbourhood. The main page feed is all junk posts/ads but if I stick to these group pages it's useful.
I don't know if the rules have changed (or if it was a state or federal rule), but when we lost water pressure due to a hurricane, the boil water advisory had to be maintained for 72 hours after pressure had been restored purely for regulatory reasons.
(This isn't a knock on the regulation--it actually makes a lot of sense. A loss of water pressure means that groundwater can seep into the water pipes where previously clean water was leaking into groundwater, and it will take a couple of days for any such intruded groundwater to be flushed out of the water pipes. This is merely me trying to point out that a boil water advisory being maintained after a pressure loss doesn't contradict the possibility that the problem has actually been fixed.)
OP has heavily editorialized the title. Actual title is "Jackson’s Water Crisis: The latest updates" and the article states that the Army corps of Engineers arrived sometime prior to Sept 2.
OP gave an accurate summary of the most important events of the article, occurring around sept. 1st. If you had to condense this article to a maximally informative 1-line title, that's a pretty decent job
Whether or not it's a decent job doesn't change the fact that it's an editorialization. The chief addition by the submitter ("resolved within 24 hours") doesn't match the timeline given in the article and isn't even claimed within it.
