This is a common framing of the Copernican revolution, and it's wrong.
Copernicus was proposing circular orbits with the sun at the center instead of the earth. The Copernican model required more epicycles for accurate predictions than the considerably well-proven Ptolemaic model did, with the earth at the centre.
It wasn't until Kepler came along and proposed elliptical orbits that a heliocentric solar system was obviously a genuine advance on the model, both simpler and more accurate.
There was no taboo being preserved by rejecting Copernicus's model. The thinkers of the day rightfully saw a conceptual shift with no apparent advantage and several additional costs.
Unlike in traditional vehicles, most EVs have such a robust firewall between the battery and the passenger compartments you literally have 1+ minute to get out, compared to often seconds in a traditional vehicle.
And I've been following Polish firefighters reports about EV fires and they are very interesting - basically saying that in all recent cases of EV fires they were contained so quickly even the interior was largely undamaged - something that practically never happens with regular cars. Some of these have been in underground garages too, with difficulty of access - but nowadays they just know how to approach an EV fire and containment isn't a problem.
That's a new one. How common are fires after accidents, and what fraction of those burn the car up while someone is trapped inside? I know people occasionally die in regular gasoline vehicles in this exact situation, so is it statistically a higher risk in EVs?
No, but they all knew he was a pedo/rapist, and were still friends with him and went to the island of a pedo/rapist, and introduced the pedo/rapist to their friends...
We don't know how many were pedo/rapists, but we know all of them liked to socialize with one and trade favours and spread his influence.
Norway, a founding member of NATO, has always shared a border with Russia. Before Finland and Sweden joined NATO, they'd already developed operational compatibility with NATO going back decades. NATO encroachment was an issue only insofar as it took away local targets for Russian expansion.
Bring Russia into NATO.
Putin desired NATO membership because then, any hostilities with another NATO member would become an intra-alliance conflict that NATO couldn't deal with. When Greece and Turkey fought over Cyprus, they were both in NATO, so neither side could invoke article 5 for help. Russia in NATO wouldn't prevent Russian wars, it would neutralize NATO.
Yes, but that integration is turning into a vulnerability as Trump tries to leverage it for monetary or territorial gains. We won't retain the prosperity we built together by appeasing him. The prosperity is going away regardless. The choice for Canada is to keep our dignity or not.
Also, calling this a bad move presumes that the US isn't going to fall much, much further than it is now, which is seeming quite plausible. When your dance partner is heading for a cliff, you need to stop dancing with them.
You have a laundry list of complaints about Canada's action wrt the US. What would someone like you on Canada's side of the border offer in response, do you think?
All of these issues go back long before Trump, who has made things uniquely worse. But any two countries with as long (and tightly bound) a history as ours are going to have constant points of friction. Are you suggesting Canada is uniquely a "fake friend" in this equation?
As people spent time in them, the oxygen would run out and be replaced with carbon dioxide, which is heavier than air and would sink to the bottom. With no exits and no airflow, wouldn't this become a straightforward deathtrap at some point? Or were there ways to force clean air to the bottom, somehow forcing out the CO2?
Copernicus was proposing circular orbits with the sun at the center instead of the earth. The Copernican model required more epicycles for accurate predictions than the considerably well-proven Ptolemaic model did, with the earth at the centre.
It wasn't until Kepler came along and proposed elliptical orbits that a heliocentric solar system was obviously a genuine advance on the model, both simpler and more accurate.
There was no taboo being preserved by rejecting Copernicus's model. The thinkers of the day rightfully saw a conceptual shift with no apparent advantage and several additional costs.
reply