mindlessscrollingparrot

If you think of it in terms of carbon footprint and what your children's future is worth to you, then the train wins no contest.

Two people were killed, so you're really talking 11.5k.

If we (society as a whole) had started switching to renewables when Greenpeace first started campaigning for them, I suspect we wouldn't have the climate emergency that makes nuclear look attractive.

It's hard to expect them to change their stance just because we failed to follow their lead for decades.

Focus follows mouse. And programs that raise the window when you click in it? Unusable.

But a glyphosate-free version also killed 96% of exposed bees, they said, “demonstrating that the active ingredient, glyphosate, is not the cause of the mortality.”

Since they know that the surfactants are toxic to bees, this is like comparing pure arsensic to a mixture of arsenic and cyanide and concluding that cyanide is not dangerous.

DRY is not an inviolable rule. Some of the most tedious code to debug is because somebody thinks puppies will die if they write the same pair of lines in two different places.

It's worse than that. They know that these people can't work. They intend for them to starve.

I suggest you read up about Deism.

Hard not to talk about it when it is 100% the best way to start your day.

I believe that the more tolerable climate predictions assume that not only will we cut emissions but that we will also find a way to remove significant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.

So you are both right.

Yes, the article headline is misleading - the trend that is reversed is the accelerating rate of deforestation, not the rate of deforestation itself.

I liked your first iteration better, to be honest. The left-hand one here is too squat. The right-hand one is cute, though - people are not wrong about that.