Really good to have google etc busted wide open by superior products and innovation. Company just seems like a black hole for talent attached to a huge money printing machine.
Still don’t understand why putting plastics into landfills is not considered carbon capture and promoted as more environmentally friendly than risking it being burnt or disposed of in the sea when shipped to developing countries for “recycling”
A single valley in some remote area can easily swallow millions of tonnes of plastic
Expensive, energy utilizing recycling processes seem less environmentally friendly while also leaving more fossil fuel available for combustion use elsewhere
Whats more likely to result in your kids being upstanding members of society? 300 million cash in a bank account, or a job and board seat at a billion dollar charity for eternity and $20 million?
If you could really move heat 300% more efficiently than using a resistive heater to generate heat, couldn’t you just move a bunch of heat to power a steam turbine and get a perpetual motion machine?
Can someone please explain to me why putting plastics in well managed landfills isn’t carbon capture? Like if plastics don’t break down for hundreds of years isn’t that carbon capture? And why burning it and producing co2 is environmentally friendly?
Obese women’s offspring have double the risk of hypospadius, and women having babies after 40 have 4x the risk of hypospadius.
Metformin is a drug that men are probably 100x more likely to be on at 45 vs 25. Therefore men on metformin are far more likely to be reproducing with older (and likely obese) women.
I’m not saying this explains all the correlation, I’m just saying if the study doesn’t really make a good effort at addressing these confounders, its not worth reading.