volkl48

Firefox 158.0.1+ is the update that blocks them, are you running that?

I am and the test site says that Firefox is correctly rejecting them.

Noticing what they look like at the time - perhaps as a brief mental observation.

Remembering an exact description of what every woman I briefly interacted with once looks like many years later, is something I can't really comprehend.

And even if I could recall their appearance, it's not something I would ever consider a salient detail to share with others in describing how my past dental visits were.

Grocery stores infamously have some of the lowest margins in all of retail and typically hover in the 1-3% range. As a sector they have about zero room for inefficiency and have to be this aggressive about chasing operating cost reductions.

The increased profits that have occurred in recent decades have landed with the big food companies, not with the retail chains selling their products at very little margin.

There is no local "base load" generation to begin with. 73% of power in VT is imports from out of state/country. Primarily from Hydro-Quebec.

- There are no coal plants left in New England at all.

- Most of VT doesn't have access to Natural Gas (the Burlington metro does, via a pipeline that is only served from Quebec, it is not connected to the US pipeline grid). There are no Natural Gas plants in the state.

- The nuclear plant closed over a decade ago.

- Actual in-state generation on a normal basis is a few biomass plants, some modest hydro on the rivers, and some scattered wind/solar.

- The power plants being "replaced" here, or at risk of being replaced, are some small and rarely used oil-fired peakers that run a few hours a year currently and have nameplate capacity in total of <200MW even if they shut down all of them.

- Transfer capacity to stressed regions (NY-ISO, PJM) is low so they can't really draw that much off the region's grid (ISO-NE).

- Power prices are always some of the highest in the country, the region in general is known for regulation and disliking development - and VT even more so. Making it unlikely you see some sort of AI data center boom here or the like.

- The most realistic source of significant new demand in the state is probably electrification (heating, cooling, vehicles).

They aren't mutually exclusive in the least.

The ease of buying things that the prior poster referred to is basically just three things:

- A massive common market with few to no internal trade barriers/complications. The EU is still nowhere near as integrated and has all sorts of odd hidden complications to actually moving + selling things.

- Hell, just this week I've seen that one of the indie record labels I pay attention to will no longer sell merch within the EU other than to the country they're based in, because the new EU packaging regulations make it infeasibly expensive to comply with for every country for the small volumes they move.

- A common language that ~92% of the population speak fluently.

- Relatively efficient logistics.

None of this has anything to do with "dismantling the welfare state" and has only a little to do with differences in workers rights/benefits - giving delivery workers in the US better wages/job security would not make the "Amazon" logistics model infeasible.

I'm certainly willing to be corrected, but as far as I can tell from some brief searching, indigenous populations that exist in the region today aren't living some nomadic life out in the wilderness either. They're living in cities and towns like almost everyone else does.

So a post like this is still correct in how it's presented.

Almost no one is actually living out at "the end of the world" in the wilderness with few or no other people around, and it is potentially a topic of interest/curiosity to hear about those who do.

The US is not currently a signatory to that, just to note.

If this is the case, they probably outright do not want you as a customer.

Significant sales (beyond for excess stock clearance/discontinued items) exist largely to generate some excitement from potential customers and to lure them in to taking a look at the site/store and to hopefully get them to buy some extra stuff that's less discounted while they're there.

The actual on-sale item is potentially losing money for the business or at break-even.

------

A person who's running a series of bots like this to track the exact lowest price on the internet for items over time and to always only buy at the lowest price it's ever been sold for....is probably the least likely kind of customer to buy anything extra that's actually profitable for the business.

Sorry, but no. This does not pass the smell test in the slightest.

This is:

- A single author paper with no academic affiliations.

- A search on the internet for this author finds them also pitching essential oils and a wide variety of other "alternative medicine" on the Youtube/Podcast grifter circuit and not the sorts of alternative medicine anyone seriously thinks might have some merit.

- The address listed for his supposed place of practice appears to be a roadside "clini-spa" advertising beauty treatments.

- This could only get published in some low-impact journal that's solely about the purported benefits of mushrooms, even though if true this would be a pretty revolutionary finding that would be of interest to far bigger journals.

Can I prove it's fraud? No, especially since I'm not paying $25 to look at the paper details.

But unless this finding replicates from someone with credibility, I don't think this means much of anything and I certainly don't think you should be taking anything in this paper as a fact.

Tough economics to imagine attempting to effectively gather mulch from in between the trees when we're talking areas so remote they often aren't even harvested for actual lumber and are a huge distance from the nearest power plant (or grid connection of any significant capacity).

-------

However, this isn't addressing the other problem: Fire is an actual part of the ecosystem in those areas. Various plant/tree species are adapted around it. Some require fire for their seeds to germinate, others need the cleared ground that results (and their seeds can survive the fire), others rely on it to keep other species out with adaptations that make them much less likely to burn in a moderate intensity/natural fire (and so they survive while an invading species doesn't).

Fire also opens up areas and causes natural forest succession - which creates an environment for more than just the biggest trees to exist for a few decades. Etc, etc, etc.

You simply can't have the natural environment out there exist as it is evolved to function without fire in the long-term.

We tried "preventing forest fires" for about a century, and it's a large part of why they're burning so intensely and destructively now.

Forest fires are a natural part of the life cycle of many forested regions - particularly in Canada and the Western US.

Suppressing all fires as soon as possible means that dead, dry plant matter continues to build up for decades longer than it naturally would, creating a "tinderbox" effect where eventually you have vastly more intense and destructive forest fires than would typically have occurred if you'd just left nature alone in the first place. And because these fires have so much more concentrated fuel they also burn hotter and can make the recovery of the forest in the area take far longer to come back.

The correct answer is to regularly perform controlled burns in areas near human settlement and to mostly leave things alone in areas away from it. Much of Canada's land area is literally uninhabited and dozens if not hundreds of miles from the nearest road, much less actual settlement.

--------

Additionally: Strongly discourage new construction in the Wildland-Urban Interface (aka: low density settlement in a wooded setting, your typical picture-esque rural mountain home - that wood is meant to burn one day, taking your cute house with it). Beyond that, strict building codes for whatever does get built there + ordinances for maintaining the space around the home to reduce risk.

Although to a significant extent, property insurers are basically already taking on this role in recent years. I have family out in the hills in CO, their insurance rates are multiple times that of their property taxes and they are now quite strict on evaluating properties in terms of risk-mitigation. And failure to adhere to all of what they want to see means you're getting dropped by the insurer and you will have a very hard time getting a different company to pick you up.

------

Anyway, as another poster noted: The forest grows back and recaptures all that carbon in a few decades, making those fires basically carbon-neutral.

This headline/article is about cleaning up sites from the early years of nuclear experimentation/research and from nuclear weapons production.

There were various accidents and a great deal of improper (at least by modern standards) handling of materials and wastes. The cleanup being talked about here is about cleaning up that contamination.

There's no dispute from anyone on any side that I am aware of that these places are heavily contaminated, need to be cleaned up, and are complicated to clean up.

-------

This headline and the findings have absolutely nothing to do with handling nuclear waste from commercial power production or commercial nuclear reactor sites.

Such as? Word hits the sweet spot of having support for all the complexity the average person may encounter/want to create.

Libre, Apple Pages, and Google Docs all seem like clearly worse tools in most aspects in my experience.

LaTeX is extremely powerful, but also way too complicated for the average non-HN person/person who doesn't live in complicated documents.