Going to a private university certainly isn’t a requirement, and in-state tuition for public universities is much, much lower (but still too high).

Also a bleak winter day is usually mostly whites and blues.

They are using nitrogen gas, generated from liquid nitrogen.

I also don’t see how the term applies only to ActivityPub, wouldn’t any federated protocol ecosystem be a ‘federated universe’?

Matrix is federated though, so why wouldn’t it have something to do with the fediverse? Is that not the definition of the term?

I think there isn’t usually a statute of limitations for murder.

The agency (FTC) can seek civil penalties, I do not see anywhere that companies could bring a lawsuit that they couldn’t before (libel?).

Someone else posted that link as well, see my response: https://midwest.social/comment/11853764.

Having a PhD doesn’t automatically make someone a reliable source, and the site it is published on isn’t exactly a respected journal.

Other direct quote:

Some officials briefed on the intelligence said that it was relatively weak and that the Energy Department’s conclusion was made with “low confidence”

An article from a well-respected journal: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(24)00206-4/fulltext.

It really seems like the evidence points towards natural origins. And the article you linked doesn’t actually have the evidence, it only waves toward the existence of classified intelligence.

No, this is circumstantial evidence from people who not only believe that this ebola outbreak came from a lab, but also that COVID-19 came from a lab, both of which are widely regarded as conspiracy theories.

I read the paper, and the evidence is very circumstantial. The fact that they argued the method of creating the rooted phylogenetic tree was not the right method, offered their preferred alternative, claimed it would likely give the result they wanted, but didn’t actually perform the analysis doesn’t come off well to me. They also seem to believe the COVID-19 pandemic started in a lab, and that the same (as they say) “experts” were involved really suggests they are conspiracy theorists who don’t trust the experts and believe in coordinated coverups of multiple lab leak events by this group of people. Believing in multiple conspiracy theories that are widely rejected in respected publications definitely doesn’t lead them to sound very credible.

I can’t find any evidence for this.

That isn’t included the percentage that didn’t change, because they aren’t interested in picking up and leaving the country just because they don’t like the government.

How are you having to scroll two page lengths?

You might get more interest if you specify what the community is for.

I don’t think the server software is open source.

Sugar only has about 4 calories per gram, so 28 grams would be 112 calories. So a blend of sugar and pecans has less calories per gram (somewhere between). Fat is very dense in calories per gram, and pecans are mostly fats.

Most of the CO2 savings comes from not raising cows, you’re correct that the carbon capture in the butter wouldn’t matter that much due to digestion, but it is likely not all the carbon will be released as CO2 again.

It wouldn’t offset much, given the upper price for direct air capture here https://www.iea.org/commentaries/is-carbon-capture-too-expensive at a little under $350/ton, and assuming a pound of ‘butter’ comes entirely from CO2 (some will by hydrogen based on the article, but assuming that’s negligible) that means at most the credit should be 16¢ per pound, which is 3.4% of the average cost of a pound of butter ($4.69, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000FS1101). My cost of butter is below average and it’s still only a 4.5% subsidy.

Edit to add: if you count the CO2 production from obtaining the milk used for real butter against the cost as well (let’s assume the resources for this process and the process of making milk into butter are similar), it seems like producing a pound of butter is emits around 4 kg of CO2, which nets you another $1.4 on each package of butter (if you use the lower number for carbon capture this is a total of $0.6 including the pound of capture from above). This is actually pretty significant, so if there was a tax for greenhouse gas emissions to cover the cost of recapture it would help a product like this be more viable.

At least in the US there are a number of subsidies that help to keep meat prices low, which isn’t really great because it increases demand for one of the more environmentally damaging foods to produce.