[removed]

As far as i know, stone will be the answer. Like the pyramids of gizeh and such stuff. Everything else will be destroyed by weathering. The pyramids will exist for many hundreds of thousand, even millions of years. Basically almost everything we build today will be destroyed pretty fast. We build in a very cheap and efficient way and nothing will last very long. Like if we would abandoned New York, there wouldnt be much left of it in 10.000 years. I believe even in 1.000 years it will be gone. Stone monuments like the people built in the past will exist for a very long time.

Oh, and satellites in the right orbit, where it takes ages for them to come closer to earth, if they manage to get to space again. Or if aliens want to visit us.

I probably forgot something but those are my answers.

They go wherever they can. They've been known to go into crawl spaces under people's homes.

It depends on how fast money is created versus how fast the growth in goods and services is. If goods and services grow faster than the money supply grows, then prices decline over time. This is really painful to people who have borrowed money and have to do more work to pay it off. If the money supply grows at the same rate that goods and services grow then prices are stable. If the money supply grows faster, we have inflation which we are currently experiencing. If the FED can rein the US money supply growth back to levels closer to the growth in goods and services, then it can go on indefinitely.

Liquids always give off a little bit of gas, generating what's called vapor pressure. As you increase the temperature, the vapor pressure also increases. When it reaches the pressure of the atmosphere around the liquid, boiling starts to happen: the liquid can turn into a gas not just at the surface but also in the liquid itself, creating bubbles. And if you try to increase its temperature any more, you will find that you can't. It will just boil harder.

So because boiling happens when vapor pressure matches the external pressure, liquids boil at different temperatures if there are different pressures acting on it. Under high pressure, it will boil at a higher temperature; that's the principle behind a pressure cooker for example. At low pressure, it will boil at a lower temperature.

[removed]

The main issue is that you would need to match the ISS orbit.

A probe coming in from deep space will have a velocity of more than 11.5km/s. ISS orbits Earth at only around 7.5km/s. This means you need enough fuel to slow down by more than 4km/s (nearly 9000 mph!). This propellant would be way heavier than a heatshield. The few deep space missions that have brought things back have not bothered to slow down to orbital speed. They just slam into the atmosphere and let it do all the braking for free.

Heatshield are actually really convenient (if technically difficult to build) ways to slow down. Think of how big a rocket needs to lift something to orbit. If you did not have atmosphere to slow you down on you way back you would need nearly as big of a rocket to land.

What you are describing is called thermal dynamics. We all know hot air rises, and cool air sinks. As long as the air is moving you have an exchange of energy. As the hot air rises, it creates a vacuum below it that pulls in colder air from below. The cooler air saps energy from the hot parts and gains heat. It then takes the heat and rises with the hot air above creating another vacuum below. That also pulls in fresh new cooler air to surround the hot parts. This continuous movement creates a convection or cycle if you will that keeps air from becoming stagnant. When you have stagnant air the air can only absorb so much heat. Circulating air can absorb more heat away from hot parts do to it being in motion. Thats how fans typically work is to force a convection of cool air to push stagnated hot air out of the way, so cool low energy air can absorb heat energy and travel away from the hot surface.

I wil definitely try anything i can to get it out hahah thanks

Try placing a baited mouse trap on the ground inside one of the front tires overnight? Idk might work, might not

Some people believe that we are facing the end of globalization as we know it today. And I personally fear that it is very real. China will soon collapse. The one child policy and many other wrong decisions will slowly but surely result in a collapse, whatever that may look like, of China.

The time of happy globalism and economic growth will soon be over and it will no longer be as it is today. Many major economic and political changes will be forced upon us. And I don't have the feeling that our current politicians are prepared for it and will make the right decisions, they are far too incompetent and corrupt for that!

Do you also think that we are facing big changes that will not be very positive? And that globalism as we know it today will be over in a few decades?

Thats at least my view of the next decades. The world will not end, but things will be different and not as easy as it is today.

Yellow is a primary color in the subtractive system. This is the ones that paint and printing use where the ink or paint subtracts some of the white light. TVs and monitors used the additive system where the three primary colors are Red, Green and Blue. You mix Red and Green to get yellow.

The other commenter is correct that R+G = Y when it comes to TV and light in general.

Yellow is only a primary color when it comes to painting (which reflects / absorbs different wavelengths of light). The primary colors of light themselves are red, blue, and green.

[removed]

It definitely changes. Google "tundra" for arctic summer and winter landscape scenes.

Who is the "they" in your first sentence?

[removed]

Yes, it does. A direct comparison between the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario shows the impact of a sunshine list exclusively in the latter. This creates an institutional disincentive from crossing that threshold, which severely limits career progress and I suppose also saves some money. The problem is that legislating the threshold is that it can't flex to accommodate inflation, new collective agreements, or specialization.

Are new neurotransmittors created often? From the food we eat for example. Or is most of it recycled materials our brain just keeps reusing?

i wouldnt say so, and to explain it to you simply i would give you this example: if you have 10 slices of pizza to divide among 10 people, the value of each slice would be one slice per person. if instead for some reason, there are now only 5 slices, each slice now has double the value it had before. conversely, if there were 20 slices instead of 10, the value of each slice would be lesser because there are more slices for everyone. the amount of slices creates the value of each slice, and in the same way the amount of money creates the value for money, and if everyone creates as much money as they wish, there would eventually be so much of money that it would lose most, if not all of it’s value. the scarcity of supply of money is what basically gives it its value

Well, trying to answer from a different point of view: Vaccines have to help the body kill the intruder, while leaving the patient intakt.

A virus can be understood to undergo different developmental stages. Much like an insekt goes from egg to larvar to adult, a virus goes from virus particle, floating alone and, debatably, dead in their environment, to integrating itself into the host. It quite litteraly overlapes with their victim, the cell becomes, to an extend, two individuals rolled into one. Targetting one while keeping the other is quite the challenge.

I hope I magaged to express myself clearly enough to be understood. I am still trying to put it into words in my native language, so I hope I didnt sow too much confusion. I am open to questions.

The point is: they chose a technology never (successfully) tested on humans for a “warp speed” vaccine development. Of course their phase 3 trials don’t count.

Is there any difference between TAKING the garbage out and PUTTING the garbage out? To me, taking the garbage out always meant taking from inside the house and putting it in the big can outside. Then putting the garbage out means putting it out in the street for the garbagefolk to take away.

Is there any difference between ‘taking’ and ‘putting’, really?

What if the energy put into the stir is equivalent for both cups?

[removed]