It used a micropulse of IR laser. Your eye couldn't see it, nor focus it properly. However, it had just enough power to overheat and damage the mosquito wings.
I believe the issue was with the targeting. It could don't, but not cheap enough for the mass deployment they intended. Mosquito nets were far more effective, once cost was accounted for.
The problem is that nuclear reactors can't be built fast. We've also lost a lot of the expertise to age and retirement.
Nuclear should have been a major factor in dealing with climate change. Unfortunately, we no longer have time for it to take up the slack. It will need to catch up with other renewable energy sources, we can't wait for it.
You still need to sort out and sign a bunch of identity confirmation/anti money laundering stuff. The government has a good track on you, at that point. It's far from perfect, but stops people getting it signed off by a random friend, that the government has no clue about, and might not even exist.
They are all professions that require a good reputation and are non-trivial to up and abandon. Some require government licenses, others imply a strong societal standing. All have something to lose, if they commit fraud.
I think it's more the fact that the Russians likely wouldn't be selling their "good" nukes. They would be selling the old, run-down ones. They would be a large chance they wouldn't detonate properly.
There's also a lot of debate on how well the rest of Russia's nuclear arsenal has been maintained. It's highly specialist work that can't easily be verified by non-specialists. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Russian nukes were already non-viable due to corruption affecting maintenance.
The problem is that, in this situation, no decision IS a decision.
Up until puberty, boys and girls are quite similar. It's puberty that causes the lifelong changes. We already know that delaying puberty doesn't cause long-term issues. Puberty blockers are used to treat or help with other conditions. By blocking puberty, you are buying time. Time for the child to mature. Time for phycologists to assess. Time to practice the role before locking it in permanently. Time to grow, learn, and make the very decision you are talking about.
Some slight ramdom paper reading, back in my uni days. Though I've ran across it via other sources over the years since. Unfortunately I don't have any links to hand though.
It might better be described as people put numbers into categories. Most people have a 10-20 category. 19.99 fits. 20.00 gets bumped up to the next box. It's a sub/semi conscious thing. If we use our higher thought process, we can deal with the numbers. That takes effort however, by default, we chunk. The price just abuses a common rollover point most people share.
It's a subconscious thing. It's how our brain is wired. It's a bit like advertising. Most people don't like ads. However, when confronted my 2 similar products, we will go with the familiar one. The source of that familiarity is irrelevant, ads make it familiar, just the same as using it, or a recommendation.
It's possible to override both of these effects, but that requires a level of conscious effort. I can almost guarantee you've been caught by both at different times. You just didn't notice (since noticing would allow you to correct).
Basically, $19.99 is in the category "under $20". $20.00 is in "over $20". Without conscious correction, you act on this.
Most people round down. Their brain locks on to the 1 of 19.99, and approximates it to 10.00. We need to actively counter this to see it as 20.00. It's a skill most people don't apply all the time, and a number can't even do.
Once you can do it reliably, it's mind-boggling that others can't, but it's still a learnt skill, that needs to be applied.
I view it like an over-revved car. Some parts can handle the strain fine, others are over stressed. Depending what aspect you look at, you will get different results.
As the pressure rises, things will start to fail. Some will not cause additional issues, but others will cascade. Predicting when a cascade failure will happen is difficult, however.
Before you criticise, you should have seen the alternative timelines! If we had switched on sooner, we might have been able to avoid this one, but we didn't.
All I will say is imagine a Trump with a triple digit IQ and competent advisors. It was horrifying. Multiple techs took compassionate leave after seeing some of the projections. Poor mark still can't make himself enter the building!
I personally support this plan. Smoking in the UK has already plummeted. A lot of smokers have moved to vaping. Unfortunately, those left are often the ruder ones. Limiting where they cam smoke, or reduce expire for everyone else is a big dead for me.
Additionally, it's not banning nicotine, it's banning cigarettes. Vapes have changes the balance on that one. They are less damaging, and cause far less issues with passive smoking. This acts as a pressure relief valve, rather than a blanket nicotine ban. Also, at no point will an existing (legal) smoker go from legal to illegal.
The vape issue definitely needs fixing. A number have found advertising to younger users is a good money maker. Limiting the options here l, without an outright ban would help reduce the harm to children. It wouldn't significantly affect ex smokers who moved to vaping.
Both work for protecting humans. However, I believe vaccination is better overall. It also improves the quality of life of the chickens. Unfortunately, it's also (very slightly) more expensive, so America went the cheap route. The EU mandated to reduce animal cruelty, by vaccination.
The Germans kept careful documentation. The allies also photographed the hell out of it, and protected those records. They knew future generations (us) wouldn't believe how evil "normal" people could get. So made sure to collect plenty of evidence.
It used a micropulse of IR laser. Your eye couldn't see it, nor focus it properly. However, it had just enough power to overheat and damage the mosquito wings.
I believe the issue was with the targeting. It could don't, but not cheap enough for the mass deployment they intended. Mosquito nets were far more effective, once cost was accounted for.