Essentially, it’s because it’s a monopolistic/anti-competitive relationship, so the producer is able to charge much more than if it were competitive. The producer seeks to maximize profits, and the schools enable them by effectively controlling the market.

Goodbye.

Five Guys have better service that is free

It wasn’t free — they were charging money for it:

Jetflicks, which charged $9.99 per month for the streaming service

Empty on Thunder.

Yeah, take a look at the solution at the top of the post.

Hm, perhaps I didn’t see it in my cursory glance of the article’s text, but is there a distinction made between the physical sex difference of a mother and feminine/maternal traits? What I mean to say is: is the article claiming that a female is important, or that the stereotypical traits of a female are important? If the latter, I would wonder, then, if a masculine presenting female would be negative in the eyes of the study.

Your questions were shit

Would you mind elaborating?

natural gas rockets are […] harmful to us all.

Why? Do you have a source for that? Why would natural gas be particularly worse than any other fuel?

What? You didn’t answer any of my questions, nor did you comment on any of my side notes.

We have better rocket fuels which degrade into water vapors.

Which fuels are those? Also why would one want their rocket fuel to degrade? I can see fuel storage issues with that. Furthermore, keep in mind that the reaction of CH4 and O2 (combustion) creates H2O (water) and CO2. The only fuel that I’m aware of that creates only water when it’s combusted in O2 is H2 (hydrogen). An issue with hydrogen as a fuel, when compared with methane, is its mass ­— lower exhaust mass lowers the specific impulse.

I don’t understand this reference. Would you mind explaining?

Final proof that more guns in our schools will not keep our kids safe.

What does the issue of the inaction of law enforcement have to do with the idea of “guns in our schools” (presumably this is inferring armed security or arming other school staff)? I am of the opinion that a lot of these issues could be solved adding armed security to schools. There are quite a number of sensitive locations like that which would benefit from that sort of security, imo.

Meteorites do contain aluminum. The issue is with the concentration of aluminum in the atmosphere, as well as its rate of increase. If there’s an increase in the atmospheric burn up of artificial satellites accompanied by an increase in the problematic particulate in the atmosphere, then it’s certainly fair to consider that the two are correlated. This is especially so if there is no increase in the burn up of objects from any natural source — eg meteors.

Hm, while the presence of the elements in question in the atmosphere could be naturally occurring, what’s important to consider for this discussion is the rate of their increase. If there’s an increase in the problematic particulate in the atmosphere that correlates with an increase in the atmospheric burn up of artificial satellites with no related increase in the rate of meteors, then its likely that the artificial satellites were indeed the culprit.

Meteors are leftovers of the same primordial stuff that made up earth, so a cross sample of them would largely share the same ratios as earth, minus the volatiles.

Logic would dictate that that is likely, though that statement itself isn’t scientific. Do you have any sources to back that up? I could see a possibility where, perhaps, certain elements are more likely to coalesce into planetary bodies, and others into meteoroids. It could also depend on the location in the solar system where the formation occurred — the primordial dust cloud that made up the infant solar system, I would wager, would be far from uniform.

deleted by creator

they are finding elements that don’t even occur in nature

Neither of your referenced quotes claimed that the elemental makeup of the measured particulate was synthetic. If you are referring to “Niobium and hafnium do not occur as free elements in nature”, what this means is that the elements are not ever found on their own — they have only ever been found bonded to something else. Niobium makes up 0.0017% of Earth’s crust and Hafnium makes up 0.00033% [source (archive)].

Those micrometeors aren’t mostly aluminium.

Do you have a source for that? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but I’ve found a number of sources that show that meteorites contain aluminum:

• source (archive)
• source
• source

To be fair, I don’t think any of those claim that any meteorites are “mostly” aluminum. But is that a true requirement?

Natural Gas rockets? What a small step for man, massive step back for mankind.

Why do you dislike methane as a fuel? Also, in case you were unaware, as a side note, SpaceX’s newest rocket, which is currently under active development, Starship and Super Heavy, uses methane as a fuel.

Best be hoping Tesla collapses

Why?

That’s an interesting idea to consider (if I understand you correctly in that you are stating that there should be a central research authority that regulates what companies are allowed to do). Though, I wonder if it’s still better to sue for damages after the fact and create regulations to cover the oversight. There’s also the issue of data — you can’t exactly study an issue before it exists. If you are instead inferring that a company should conduct this sort of safety research themselves, it creates a sort of prisoner’s dilemma: companies wouldn’t be to keen on sharing their research with others, and if they are forced to, a company wouldn’t want to be the one to waste the money on it for others to profit off of.

I’d also like to note that this sort of regulation has no business being the decision of a single country, but, instead, it should be the decision of a global government, as it is an issue that affects the whole planet. How such a global government should be structured, though, I am not yet certain. The UN doesn’t exactly cut it.