It is used for charging batteries, not providing constant power. It disengages on lane change according to the article, but that should not be a problem if there are batteries.
Sure, but you'll be disconnected for that and you're going to have to reconnect on the far side. That's going to cause some arcing and wear. On the plus side, self driving cars will have something to aim for. Provided there isn't any snow or ice to deal with.
Water under voltage forms a resistor network (effectively). After some distance it's not that deadly if you don't have potential to neutral.
Arcing may also occur under high current situations with low voltage as long as an arc forms early in the disconnect (just test it on your car battery)
if you are buying a house you are probably a member of a family with two adults and hopefully two incomes. That makes a $1M more realistic.
At least that is the way it works here in Stockholm where $1M houses frequently are bought by people with way lower salary than 180k, often not even 180k combined in the family. However, prices here are very inflated and rates are super low.
"... but I’m not cut out to be a stay at home parent"
As with leadership skills, I think that enjoying to be a stay at home parent also must be learnt. It might seem hard, or boring, or tedious to some. But I am convinced basically anyone can make an enjoyable experience of it if they actually make an effort. It will not come automatically, it will take some time and effort.
I have some issues with the statement "No scientific evidence this product works". To me it is toothless and not very convincing. What if the product never has been tested scientifically? In that case, it might work...
However, if a label would say "10 peer reviewed and published scientific studies find no evidence that this product works". Now that is convincing.
> To me it is toothless and not very convincing. What if the product never has been tested scientifically? In that case, it might work...
> However, if a label would say "10 peer reviewed and published scientific studies find no evidence that this product works". Now that is convincing.
I don't think that this is how medical labelling should work. If you want to sell a product on the basis of its effect on your health, then the onus should be on you to prove that it works, not on others to prove that it doesn't. In this setting, I think that a presumption of guilt (ineffectiveness or harmfulness) until proven otherwise is appropriate.
"No scientific evidence this product works" does not mean the same thing as "this product does not work!" People confusing the two is very harmful.
It could mean, for example, "there is plausible mechanism of action but there hasn't been much research on the topic [for whatever reason]" or it could mean "there's absolutely no known mechanism of action, it doesn't make physiological sense, and a century of research has proved it doesn't work." These two statements are obviously not the same!
I don't see how that's convincing at all. To you and me who actually know a little bit about how science is supposed to work, sure. But to some Jane Doe who never took any science classes in college and has no idea what "peer review" is, and is taken in by the fluffy New-Age BS marketing on the product's label, that phrase isn't going to mean squat.
The fundamental problem I think is that much of society simply doesn't understand what science is, and why it's important, or why they should care about scientific studies in regard to allegedly medicinal products they may use.
The article only mentions that consuming this particular seaweed eliminates methane. I am missing the production perspective. How much more/less greenhouse gasses are created during production of the seaweed compared to traditional fodder? The net total is what counts.
Seaweed dries and rehydrates well, and like all vegetables it's mostly water, so if it's grown somewhere where it can be sun-dried then total energy cost for transport could be low.
