DreamlandLividity

That's not how this works. The rule can't stop you as a private person. You can still post bot reviews.

It will apply to businesses, which don't have the right to remain silent or against searches. If they suspect a business is breaking the rules, they can subpoena the employees, computers and bank records to check if they are breaking the rule. And if they think the employees would risk jail time for perjury or destruction of evidence to protect their employer, they can just raid the offices and seize the computers.

Unfortunately we are out of Czechoslovakias at the moment. Our last one broke in two :(

Almost, yes. It should be close enough as an estimate.

If you want to be precise, one thing you want to be careful about is that not every fuel releases the same amount of energy per kg of CO2. So you should be comparing to the CO2 released by whatever is being replaced by the biofuel (most likely fossil fuel), not the biofuel itself.

Another consideration is how much CO2 is released by the production of the biofuel compared to what it is replacing. Since farming equipment, transportation etc. all could produce CO2.

A very good question.

It is a very common misconception that trees and plants just always absorb CO2. The Carbon (C) in CO2 does not just disappear when plants produce Oxygen (O2). Plants use it as material to grow themselves and their fruits. Once they are fully grown, they don't really absorb any more. So if you burn a tree in a fireplace and grow a new tree in its place, the new tree will eventually re-capture all the CO2 burning the wood released as it grows. This works even better with fast growing plants used for biofuel. The CO2 released by burning biofuel is re-captured when you grow more plants to make more biofuel.

So chopping down a forest to create fields is bad in the short term since it releases and does not recapture the CO2 from the trees, but is sustainable in the long term since you "recycle" the same Carbon.

I feel like CrowdStrike did some much groundbreakingly stupid shit that this term will be too ambiguous...

I think switching to a frequency that a different region uses could be dangerous, since then the airplanes near do border would receive the signal but the airport wouldn't. This could lead to misscommunications.

Also, the airline pays for the jets.

PS: source is https://youtu.be/9qM-xN7Bgg8

PPS: They do try the emergency frequency, routing a message through the previous area controller as well as anything else they can think of first. I left it out for brevity. Of course, fighter jets are not the first choice.

They don't command them, but they call them in like you call the police.

Fun fact: From time to time, a pilot forgets to change frequency when entering a new area. This means the plane looks like it is not communicating. This is the most common reason why jets are sent to intercept an airliner. Of course, I would pay to see a recording of the pilots as they see the jet in front of them and realize they messed up.

In the first place, looking at wealth is pointless. I could make a thousand dollars a day and as long as I spend them immediately on services, (e.g. permanently living in an expensive hotel, renting a supercar) I could have net worth of $0 while living like a king. On the other hand, a struggling business owner may have millions in equipment and still have trouble putting food on the table. "Wealth" is not a good indicator of anything.

Hmm, that is actually an interesting point. If it is negative, does it bring down the sum in this? If so, how much of the world is my net worth greater than? A billion? Two?

Yes, that is a much better way to make the same point :)

Not lives on, but net worth (total wealth).