I don't think airship travel is viable due to inability to properly steer them outside of very specific conditions, regardless of the filling. I would love to be proven wrong if it were somehow economic for shipping, but I have no high expectations.
It is still insufficient, but it's also disingenuous to use the profit of their global operations to say the fine is a small cost of doing business to their California warehouses.
Yes, it's negligible. Before considering atmospheric attenuation, every day something like 15,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Watts (15 Zettawatts) of the sun's power reaches the earth. SOURCE
So enough power hits the earth in a second to power the human population's activities for many months at a time.
You would think that's enough to put into perspective how bad energy trapping atmospheric emissions are, but nope.
Exponents and Logarithms can be first taught in Middle School in many places, but sometimes get revisited during Calculus in AP High School or at University level.
Even with heavier propulsion, blimps and rigid airships are completely beholden to the weather as a light breeze can completely prevent landing or cause crashes.
Planes are safer per mile but not per trip. One could argue that if people spent the same amount of time in both then it would be far more fatalities on aircrafts.
Cars are technically the major source of danger for bikes and scooters.
32 seconds, actually. They must have paused the game timer during the four minute deliberation, drat! If we could find a single example of results being overturned outside of a game then that would satisfy the question.
Don Majkowski threw a game winning touchdown pass to Sterling Sharpe in 1989 but the points were taken away as an illegal forward pass penalty, until later they saw the replay footage and awarded the points post game.
To be clear the fat contents correlate with the lower testosterone, but the same was not true for high carbohydrate diets, so it's a correlation specifically with high fat meats.
I used words like "not proven to" and "probably" as reasons to express doubt, but yeah it looks like it was a recent controversy with men's health magazine and several studies going back about at least a decade disprove it citing a very clear inverse correlation with higher fat concentration in meats.
Well, he is a lunatic for different reasons, but the reason for declining testosterone is not because of a crime, a plot, or correlating to a lack of masculinity, heavily masculine individuals still exist en masse, rather the average is being brought down by associated factors including average USA population increases in weight, diabetes, and of course age (See the Table below). Other factors that haven't necessarily been proven to effect us on this scale, but probably do, is the move away from meat. While strictly veganism and vegetarian demographics have declined in recent years depending on who you ask, meat-replacement markets have grown massively in the last two decades.
There is no current widespread deficiency or emergency. Even with lower Testosterone levels most males are sufficient to remain healthy, even the chart shows that all but one blip of the collected data is above the 350 mark which is considered safe.
EDIT: Looks like consumption of fat contents in meat inversely correlates with testosterone, so vegans might actually be more masculine by that definition.
Alright but hear me out, if the Protestants and Fundamentalists were at war with the Catholics and also at risk of being invaded by the world powers then you’d think they’d at least be smart enough to stop killing each other for a few minutes.
I’m going with the Leadership Dick Measuring Contest theory I presented earlier.