I play a lot of NMS. I don't know if it's going to scratch your specific itch, but it's a lot of fun if you can get on its level.
I'm definitely there for the storylines - it's pretty much a single-player game as far as I care. And I don't have a lot of time for the min/maxers, either.
The company has gone through a rough patch with the Embracer nonsense, but we generally get a new story mission every 3-4 months.
Yeah...I shared it on the assumption that RT has enough integrity that there might be something to it, but we shall see.
YMMV, but I think it's pretty light on grinding. I log in for maybe 10-20 minutes a day, and am able to keep up with whatever events are going on just fine. The story episodes are much longer, but you can go through those at your own pace easily enough.
As for the stuff in the article about the game being a little dated and clunky after all these years...that's a big "yup" from me.
I also can’t say whether the site was studied sufficiently, but the timelines talked about in the article combined with bill C-15 allowing ministers to except entities from environmental laws if they are pursuing something to be deemed as encouraging economic growth pushes me well beyond the point where I’m willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt.
Fair enough - the article you linked described the study of Yucca Mountain as a storage for nuclear waste as having taken about 20 years, whereas as near as I can tell, they started exploratory drilling in Cold Lake in 2022. That's...less than 20 years, no doubt about it.
nearly all CCS projects in the U.S. are actually enhanced-recovery projects that keep the oil and gas flowing
This is undoubtedly the case for his project, as well. Even the most optimistic viewpoint seems to be that it would make the effects of continued drilling and export of oil "less bad," and do nothing to actually stop climate change.
Airborne Early Warning and Control is a specific type of thing, so an AEW aircraft is a particular type of aircraft.
I'm extremely skeptical of the whole thing, but I'm trying to learn more. The article you shared says:
Many geologists (myself included) believe there are places on Earth where long-term CO2 storage could be safely achieved, but it would require what scientists call “site characterization.” That means studying the location in enough detail to be confident that things put there will stay there. For example, the U.S. currently stores military radioactive waste in low-permeability salt formations in New Mexico, and there are numerous pending proposals to store CO2 in sandstones overlain by low-permeability shales in North Dakota.
Okay, so the CBC article seems to suggest that the site in question has been studied.
At the storage hub, the gas would be injected deep underground in the Basal Cambrian Sandstone formation, which sits one to two kilometres below the surface. The sponge-like sandstone has spaces that can be filled with CO2.
Above that formation is thick, non-porous rock salt that can act as a barrier to keep the carbon dioxide in the ground.
I have no idea whether it's been studied sufficiently, but the author of the article you shared seems to think it can be effective if that step is taken.
And I think even the most optimistic proponents of carbon storage argue that it's a means of mitigating the effects of heavy industry, not of making a meaningful difference in other ways. But they seem to think those mitigating effects can be important, and maybe even necessary?
Saab had bundled its surveillance aircraft proposal in with its pitch to sell Gripen-E fighter jets to Canada and promised to transfer technology so both aircraft could be fully manufactured locally. Carney did not say anything about whether Canada will proceed with the Gripen and limit its purchase of American-made F-35 jets.
Sounds like he's vacating his seat entirely.
It's not exactly what you're describing, but I have an absolutely miserable time with the generic, one-word titles that seemed so prevalent in the '90s in particular.
"Vortex"
"Whispers"
"Emanations"
"Resolutions"
"Anomaly"
And on and on and on...
Claiming Canada was founded on the principle of strong provinces, Ms. Smith said, “Canada is very different from the United States and many other Western democracies. For example, the U.S. centralizes the majority of power and decision-making in its federal government. In Canada, we chose a decentralized federation composed of very unique and diverse provinces left to govern themselves in almost all matters with the main exceptions of national defence and international affairs.”
Absolutely unhinged.
It was only recently that I learned that programmable matter has been a (theoretical) concept for decades - pretty cool if there have been some new developments in the field.