It's been a while since I've rented, but I assume this is covered in the agreement when you make a booking. I'd guess their butts are covered from the fraud perspective. Maybe misleading advertisement though?
How many places in a densely populated city can you precisely drop a bomb with no risk to civilians? Yes, technology has improved, but my point is that better tech doesn't just automatically make war less awful.
I don't believe the people operating the weapons are different in ways that make civilian casualties obsolete. In WW2 it was a decision to bomb population centers, not an accident. That decision can be made today too.
Terry Pratchett had a plan for things he was working on at the time of his death:
> Pratchett told Neil Gaiman that anything that he had been working on at the time of his death should be destroyed by a steamroller. On 25 August 2017, his assistant Rob Wilkins fulfilled this wish by crushing Pratchett's hard drive under a steamroller at the Great Dorset Steam Fair.
I think you may be slightly misinterpreting the parent comment. When they say the NIF's task is weapons research, I think they meant that the facility was built with that task in mind. When I read your comment it sounds more like you're talking about the current task of the people working there.
Both valid points of discussion, but different ones.
The practices you're describing largely seem sensible, but I think they are also beside the point made by the article, namely that Texas seems to emit more gas per unit of production than a neighbor.
> gas doesn't have a ton of value in the Permian basin.
You note this, but the assertion that selling or using the gas to run generators are top preferences for producers seems contradictory, or perhaps a bit oversimplified.
If gas is abundant and has little value, I would expect there would also be little incentive to sell it when it isn't trivially easy to do so, or to store it for later use running compressors or generators. Cheap gas would mean venting or flaring are the least expensive option in more situations.
Non-meta Answer from user @bruce511:
"Russia doesn't have much in the way of non-polar coast (well, not today European end) so they've been breaking ice since forever. The US by comparison has very little polar coast and so less need for icebreakers."
I agree that making a clear demand seems more effective if possible, but I don't think disorganization necessarily implies that displeasure is only momentary and involves no risk. Many people can be upset about something and agree on a way to protest it without agreeing on what the solution should be.
I think that's good advice in principle, but the practical limitation is the ability of a bunch of redditors to come to an agreement on point #2 on short notice.
Maybe they figure the implied message of "you are doing a bad thing we don't like. Don't do the bad thing" may be enough to get some change to happen, if change is a real possibility.