You've never chilled your drink with frozen butter?

It doesn’t take being on a car site, it has to do with a basic understanding of chemistry.

First strike or not it is irrelevant, if anyone is doing something drastic enough that someone is willing to launch nukes we are all going to lose.

Does it matter? If we let more than a few nukes off the chain it isn’t going to be good for us no matter where they go.

You’re being a fucking pedant. The title serves the purpose of explaining what happened, if not being 100% technically correct.

It doesn't need to be, it's acting as an oxidizer not as the actual fuel.

No, it refers to something deceptive or illusory, ie: something that didn't exist, like these idiots fire extinguisher

Your comment is the equivalent of someone in a mexican standoff holding a pile of hand grenades and cackling that the other guys are gonna get theirs.

If you people launch your nukes do you really think China and Russia wouldn’t do the same?

When y’all decided that regular english just wasn’t american enough.

Global warming and cooling cycles are a known quantity, we have geological proof of them. You haven’t cracked some cipher.

I would love that to be the case but I’ll believe it when they have more to showcase than a press release.

Switching over to pure renewables is not realistic at this point, we just don’t have storage for it. Electric cars are possible.

You are uninformed. I recommend you have a clue before going off like a jackass again

3G Capital is a Brazilian firm I'm fairly sure

Coal plants can do much more filtering and sequestration than is practical or possible in a car. There is a plant in Saskatchewan that is doing just this, capturing and compressing the CO2 for storage and sale. Taking size and weight restraints out of the picture changes the situation significantly.

You’re still wrong. Power plants can run far cleaner and at higher efficiency levels than would be possible in cars where weight is a concern.

That to me is the most exciting aspect of this, because of the differences between a human driver and the computer we will, of necessity, have to revise some of our policy and design decisions, leaving it open to make big overhaul changes.

Vehicle/pedestrian interactions are dangerous because of human drivers, not the cars themselves.

You’re ignoring the fact that most cars currently spend the bulk (90+) of their time sitting unused.

A thankless task is usually a necessary one. What America did wasn’t necessary and made things worse.