I don't know why you think he couldn't. A legally binding statement of intent to offer TikTok the 90-day window and work out a "deal" once in office would be more than sufficient justification for the heads of the various companies involved to ease enforcement until things become more resolved.
The citations were only to biochar working (at least what I could see) and not a comparison of biochar to other options. Why would/should some (read a farmer) spend some money on biochar if something else works as well or better?
> Sure, theoretically the rules say they shouldn't do that but that's not how reality works.
Do you have any evidence for this or are you just making this up as you type? Because it's a bit rich to be harping about "reality" otherwise.
A large body of research supports traffic calming measures for pedestrian safety and to increase driver awareness. A four-way stop intersection surrounded by intersections that also have stop signs (as indicated by the article) would fit that bill.
> If a platform is attempting to operate within the ethos/spirit of free speech, you 'should' be allowed to make such statements on the platform.
Ah, but you aren't allowed to say "Christian men are totally useless" or "Lesbians are so stupid", so it sounds like you should take up the ethos/spirit of free speech with Meta as well.
...why else do you think it's important to predict hurricane paths and tornado spawning storms and flooding rains and heat waves further ahead of time?
> Do you know that Chrome argued that <dialog> should be removed from the platform because it's a bad API with multiple issues?
That's not at all what the comment you linked to says. It says there was an open question about if <dialog> should be removed from the spec because interest hadn't materialized from Firefox and Webkit for the element after four years (and wouldn't for another two years after that).
This is really weird to suggest that Russia hasn't systematically bombed a very large number of residential areas. That's been their SOP in several conflicts.
When hospitals and supermarkets are being hit repeatedly by multiple "precision" munitions, and then (sometimes) the Russians post drone footage of the impacts because they just happened to have been watching that location, and when the Russians have also used video footage of strikes on Syrian hospitals to market the effectiveness of their munitions, it's not crazy to suggest that they engage in terror bombing tactics.
They don't bomb residential buildings in areas with civilians present. The 'residential areas' they are fighting against are positions taken up by Ukranian soldiers. The Russians are happy to go block by block with artillery to remove the opposing soldiers, they're not targeting civilians.
You are absolutely wrong. They 100% target civilians - and FFS they will post videos of themselves doing it and brag about it on Telegram and Twitter.
Chechnya and the Syrian civil war were no different, but now there's video evidence and admissions of guilt all over the internet (and more than that, they laugh about firefighters and medics being blown up by drones and bombs), and yet still people deny it. It's nuts.
If you're saying this stuff, you're either not actually paying attention to the evidence or you're deliberately closing your eyes to it. It's that absurd.
Nonsense. The first link is dead. The 2nd link, half the town is already destroyed, as you might be able to see. Anyone still in that area is likely a combatant.
Kherson is not empty of civilians. Your link only claims that "southern" Kherson was evacuated. If you look at a map it's pretty clear why - it's at low elevation and hard to reach due to various waterways. It was also hit hard by the flooding after the Khakovka dam was destroyed.
It is extremely trivial to find out that Kherson still has a significant civilian presence, although many have indeed left.
And FFS you can see in the video that several of the people targeted are clearly elderly or medics / firefighters.
Maybe you should let go of the propaganda narrative. If there are still significant numbers of civilians in a city that's actively being shelled, especially for a country the size of Ukraine, then the authorities there are obviously morons.
From the CNN article:
> At 4 a.m. on Tuesday morning, three shells landed near the home of Hrigorii, who did not want to give his surname. He said he believes a nearby hospital was the intended target.
That's talking about artillery, that's what 'shells' are. Artillery has a very finite range. Why in God's name are their still civilians in the city, let alone WITHIN ARTILLERY RANGE? That's beyond stupid. So either these stories are complete fabrications, which is likely, or there will need to be a lot of Ukranians tried for war crimes after they finally surrender.
No, he couldn't? It's not even clear he'll be able to do anything with an executive order when he is sworn in, but President elects certainly can't.
reply