Radiation of heat is done through em waves which are massless particles. Being in direct contact with the air will transfer heat via conduction, or particles vibrating against each other - which is how the vast majority of heat loss will occur.

I’m not sure what you mean by in there but yes, the heat would be transferred to the environment.

E=m(c^2) describes how much energy is contained in matter. It’s useful for nuclear reactions, but your body isn’t a nuclear reactor and you aren’t consuming substantial quantities of radioactive isotopes, like uranium ore, that will decay on their own so it isn’t relevant here.

Producing heat isn’t where the mass goes though - mass is conserved. You only lose mass to energy in a nuclear reaction.

This is taking a laptop CPU and stuffing it in a handheld. The laptop CPU already has the npu and removing it would require a new SKU which would cost money for special handling for packaging, new firmware, new drivers, and probably more costs I haven’t considered. You would save on the silicon but unless they have high volume, removing the npu is likely more expensive.

Not sure if you know this or not but black Hermione wasn’t a canon claim like Dumbledore. People were criticizing the casting of a play and she was defending the actress, saying “Hermione can be a black woman with my absolute blessing and enthusiasm.”

Imo the worst of the canon claims is that wizards would shit themselves and then apparate it away instead of developing toilets.

But why are the prices of food rising faster than the costs paid by companies (this is inclusive of all costs)? The naive assumption is that if all costs were originally x and prices were 1.1x, then as costs become 1.3x, prices become 1.1*1.3x. However, their profit margins as a percentage rose. So instead of 1.1 we now have 1.4.

Obviously the numbers used are fake, but this is why people are angry and it’s not something I’ve seen explained using economic principles that don’t involve terms like market consolidation at best or collusion at worst on any article. Rage sells so telling people their groceries cost more because there aren’t enough grocers or the grocers are collaborating is good business for newspapers as long as they can find an expert or group to make the allegations for them.

Can you use changes in monetary policy to explain why grocery store profits are higher than before? I would think that in the event of inflation stores would stabilize to profits that are roughly the same (percentage wise) as they were prior to the inflation occurring. To the best of my knowledge, this has not happened.

This is the first article I found, and in it they don’t mention any economic policy as a major cause.

They might have a ton of student loan debt (+vets don’t make much) so their after-loan income is fairly modest.

White hair by the door is Bell Cranel from danmachi. Not sure whothe person standing next to him is. Elf in green is sylphiette next to rudeus greyrat, both from mushoku tensei.

According to the example on this Wikipedia page you live in a village not a town. Just thought it was neat.

Isn’t this old news? We’ve known about China and other countries hacking US infrastructure for decades. See: https://apnews.com/general-news-c8d531ec05e0403a90e9d3ec0b8f83c2

Hidden Power doesn’t exist in Gen 9. Although you can use Tera Blast with the appropriate Tera type to replicate that. Note that using your Tera on Heatran will also change your defensive typing for the 3 turns (?) it lasts.

Insurance policies are short-term and climate change is going to take longer to really hit. Climate change isn’t why but rather legislative changes. I’ve left a more detailed comment elsewhere in this thread if you’re interested.

It’s largely legislative changes that have made insurance unprofitable in those states. Florida’s bad faith law and banning of international reinsurers have both hurt the industry a lot. California has had wildfires for a long time and their frequency hasn’t increased much over time.

I left a more detailed comment elsewhere in this thread if you’re interested.

In Florida the issue has little to do with rising sea levels at the moment. There’s a Bad Faith law that makes the insurance companies responsible for the policyholders legal bills if the decision increases the amount of the settlement. There are a lot of lawyers that take cases and only bill if they win, and if they do win they bill a lot. There is also a lot of insurance fraud in Florida, both of which drove up the legal costs to insurers. Catastrophic events are more impactful to insurers in Florida since Florida has passed a law preventing international reinsurers from being used. So when a hurricane hits rather than having the costs borne by a larger number of insurers across the globe, only US insurers will be spending money on the catastrophe. This has pushed many insurers to insolvency.

In California rate increases could allow insurers to keep up with rising costs. Note that the percent of homes affected by wildfires is only somewhat up over the past roughly 20 years, the real problem is the increase in severity due to rising property values and insurers being unable to raise rates due to Prop 103. Prop 103 allows for public interest groups to have hearings with the DOI and the insurance company to determine if a rate increase of 7% or higher is justified, and the insurance company must pay the legal costs of the public interest group(s). The lawyers who lobbied for this law have set up a public interest group and start hearing whenever an insurer tries to increase rates at 7% or more. Said group tries to drag out the hearings as long as possible, since it’s free money.