The only story that pops up is a pipeline rupture in Satartia, Mississippi. No fatalities, 46 people hospitalized. Maybe OP is misremembering?

https://apnews.com/general-news-24e50c057a8102b18247f1fad7837605 https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/26/22642806/co2-pipeline-explosion-satartia-mississippi-carbon-capture

Edit: They probably mean this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster

I imagine any reasonable traffic law would forbid drivers from impeding traffic like that. You might be able to do it somewhat discreetly, but it’s still a matter of enforcement, and you can bet blue nonces will suddenly start caring about enforcing traffic laws.

Edit: UK Road Traffic Act

If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.

It really feels like SCOTUS noticed that environmentally-conscious people are advocating for expansion of rail, and will now rule in favour of this project just to spite them.

approval for a railroad project

Let’s see…

that would carry crude oil

😭 what the heck

Until now I was under the impression that this was the goal of these notices:

If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Because if an LLM ingests a comment with a copyright notice like that, there’s a chance it will start appending copyright notices to it’s own responses, which could technically, legally, maybe make the AI model CC BY-NC-SA 4.0? A way to “poison” the dataset, so that OpenAI is obliged to distribute it’s model under that license. Obviously there’s no chance of that working, but it draws attention to AI companies breaking copyright law.

(also, I have no clue about copyrights)

Thanks for the context. I still don’t really trust the efforts to decarbonize oil, and I’d rather see it downsized or replaced (with e-fuels for example), than building new plants that are more efficient. Except we’re so reliant on oil we can’t just use less of it, so the options are limited.

What exactly is the rationale behind sending essentially a carbon tax paid by German citizens to the opposite end of the world? Other than potential for oversights and fraud, obviously. Instead of funding renewables in Germany, the money is used to “reduce CO2 emissions” during fossil fuel extraction, what the fuck?

Looks like Delta will be one of the first, but I don’t think it’s available just yet.

I think “Nintendo” should be treated like a plural noun because they consist of many lawyers.

Nice try kiddo, but sloth is a sin 😎

Isn’t this specifically about sand for construction which needs to be coarse enough? For glass packaging you melt that stuff anyway, SiO₂ is SiO₂. Also I imagine the amount of sand needed for glass bottles would be way smaller than what construction industry uses, even less so if you recycle.

If you’re worried about random exes and repacs, I’ll let you know that there is a DRM-free GOG version of Disco Elysium. Of course you still need to make sure you’re downloading it from a reputable source, but it’s basically as good as it gets from safety standpoint.

Apple before implementing sideloading:

"We can’t let users install unverified apps. Sideloading will make our devices less secure. "

Apple after they’re forced to implement sideloading:

"We give users the freedom to install apps from outside the store. The iPhone is as secure as ever. "

Hands Monopoly money to the clerk at a Samsung store

“I’ll take the S24, money is a made up concept anyway”

Yes, I get that literally clean energy is important and in many places it would be a significant improvement. It can also be easier to explain that we need to move away from fossil fuels based on tangible pollution, not the nebulous “greenhouse gasses” and “global warming”, especially when talking to conservative folks.

Still, I feel like public awareness of the issue is… questionable. Whenever I read about some government program to fund more renewable energy, or hear politiciants discuss it, it’s almost always the literal clean, not green clean. Invisible emissions will still mess up our climate, and more people should know that.

One of my personal pet peeves, along with people who act like “clean energy” simply means no smog or visible particulate emissions.