>After that the drone will move up and down a few meters, before heading off at walking pace in the direction of the nearest representatives of Ukraine’s army, it says.
>The video also warns that the drone’s battery may run low, in which case it will head back to base and the soldiers should stay put and await a fresh one.
So follow it, unless it's heading to a base. Is it clear when its battery is low? Maybe it just goes faster.
After having spent far too long in an academic institution, whose administration was the most riddled with errors, incompetence, and bloat that I've ever encountered, this article makes me feel happy. It's not an easy problem, but at least someone notices.
Generation 0: each child kills 0 people on average.
Generation 1: each child kills 1 people on average. G0 comments that kids are killing more people these days.
Generation 2: each child kills 2 people on average. G1 comments that kids are killing more people these days.
Generation 3: each child kills 3 people on average. G2 comments that kids are killing more people these days.
Generation 3 points out that "lol people have been saying that forever. Nothing is happening. Our generation aren't that bad, because previous generations had the same narrative."
I'm catching a whiff of straw...
There's a fundamental distinction between a relative statement eg "People are working less than they were before" and an absolute statement eg "Nobody wants to work anymore". What you've demonstrated falls into the former.
Relationships in time work transitively -- if each successive generation is worse, they're by definition worse than any have been before. See: Peter Gibbons and how his life is the worst its ever been, each new day.
>This framework is designed to take into account a wide range of locations, individual conditions, and other data that can contribute to changing trends in sperm counts.
So, just count everyone and diminish the geographical factor in a problem. OK, let's ignore the problem until everyone is affected. Seems pretty un-legit.
If plenty of people are already doing it, why is the article titled with the question of whether we should start doing it?
It's because the article is talking about making it more of a primary source of nutrition. It isn't even the primary ingredient in sushi.
So, if the rich (and politicians) start eating it as a primary source of nutrition, then the commenter to whom you were replying might consider it similarly.
Because they are trying to sell the idea to the western countries. But macroalgae culture is a standard business in China and Japan since thousands of years.
I had eaten it, the green are good, salty when fresh and a little bland after cooking it, the red are a little bitter with a medicine aftertaste. You should use it sparsely in kitchen. Is more a spice than a main dish.
The main problems are that climate change removed 90% of the Laminaria forests here in the last 20 years and that the red algae are harvested and sold for pharma and industry, so aren't really available to harvest to the common people. You need a permit for this. The culture is also complicated here.
Fact Check: Not all free speech "absolutists" "excoriate" such things. Some of them have nearly always considered the context in which they're given to decide whether these kind of annotations indicate an actual fact-check, or, alternatively, a big flag that the post, podcast, or video might be something that contains genuinely interesting and informative content. Others enjoy seeing their oppressive opponents foisted upon their own petards, after the same tool did little to harm themselves to begin with, and then also seeing their opponents squeal in rage at how the turntables.
>The video also warns that the drone’s battery may run low, in which case it will head back to base and the soldiers should stay put and await a fresh one.
So follow it, unless it's heading to a base. Is it clear when its battery is low? Maybe it just goes faster.