I mean, driving in two inches of unploughed snow isn't a big deal where I'm from but that's - as you mentioned - where everyone has winter driving experience, but also winter tires.

The US needs to legalize it first

The solution is not more fuel efficient or fuel alternative cars, it's the replacement of cars entirely (where reasonable). But you can't shock that, because it requires infrastructure which literally doesn't exist in much of North America, and is severely lacking in the rest of it.

newer generations are increasingly tech-literate

mmm... 🤨

But wait, the sun moves around in its orbit around the galaxy. How can the sun be straddling the line at all times? You can't even solve that by saying the division is exactly in the same plane as the sun's orbit because it varies up and down due to differences in the galactic make-up. Does the dividing line just move with the sun like some sort of sol-centric division?

Nuclear (with the exception of France because they're special) is limited to being a base load as you alluded, but power demand varies throughout the day. Nuclear can't vary on a 24 hour scale to follow the load so we need renewables and energy storage or hydroelectric to make up the difference. That's what "nuclear OR renewables" misses

And if you work at a company and the leadership becomes burdened with other life events? They delegate management to someone whose job it is to keep things running smoothly.

Co-ops can work that way too lol, there's a co-op in Spain with 75,000 employees.

TL;DR people forget that like 90% of businesses fail, of fucking course co-ops are no different

It depends on a number of factors: outdoor temperature, the model of car, whether climate control is used. At temperatures of an average January daytime high where I live, using climate control, range can decrease by 40% and anecdotally my model is even higher.

It's not 10-20 years of construction AND 10-20 years at a loss, it's 10-20 years of construction at a loss. Not great, but up to 40 years as you suggest sounds a lot worse because it's a misrepresentation.

In Canada the decimal after the cents is part of the screen and changes rather than being fixed at .9

Reddit had a good system for this (gasp)

News was for US news, Worldnews specifically banned US news. If you wanted US news you went to news, if you wanted to catch up on news elsewhere you went to worldnews.

This system right now only serves Americans and until a split is put in place it will only serve Americans because the only posts people will see will be the ones all the Americans upvote

The people who don't have any money can't vote for anybody who is good about this because that's how it's designed. It's not our fucking fault.

I mean it is; that we haven't taken power directly.

And micromanagement positions

Not arguing for either unit here - use what you're comfortable with and don't be smug about it - but Americans are ~4-5% of the world and even if not all Americans use Fahrenheit, people in other countries (e.g. mine) still do.

My brother is gen Z and is having a kid this year

So a bunny rabbit is a bunny coney?

Nuclear plants are immensely profitable, just not on time scales politicians are interested in. You're deep in the red for 10-20 years and then after that it prints money

How do you follow hashtags?

Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland. This raises the question, "what is the difference between Great Britain and Britain?"

The distinction, when it is made, is that Great Britain is the entity encompassing the three nations on the island of Britain. Sometimes the distinction is not made, and in that case Great Britain is used for both.

And you would be running 10-20 years of gas and coal power plants in addition to the renewables if you're not in a suitable area for hydro because suitable grid scale energy storage solutions literally don't exist. Maybe they will in 10-20 years, but would you bet on a maybe or go with nuclear which we know will work as a baseload?