Both kinds of trees have blossoms. Granted, people do call ornamental cherry trees "cherry blossom trees" ... but, technically speaking, a "blossom" is literally the flower of any stonefruit tree.
ExFed
joined 2 years ago
cherry trees and cherry blossoms are two different trees
Do you mean "ornamental" cherry trees and "fruiting" cherry trees? A "cherry blossom" (or "sakura") refers to the flower of a cherry tree, usually of the "ornamental" variety. The article seemed fine to me.
Can't be going and adopting kids all willy nilly, or else the adoption factories might ramp up production!
/s
Turns out there's a lot of historical context. Also, whether it was God or Satan who influenced David is somewhat ambiguous thanks to quirks in translation.
I display a clock at work that I proudly label as "Standard Time" year-round. Screw daylight stealings.
I think we're done here.
On that we can agree.
No, let's make that 20 years of more environmental destruction.
Okay, hold up. Just take a minute here to breathe. Nobody's arguing against renewables. They, just like nuclear power, are a part of a healthy, diverse mix of technologies which will help displace fossil fuels. That's the whole point: get rid of fossil fuels where we can in whatever way we can.
make the leap to nuclear ... in 10-15 year's time
We already did. 70 years ago. Then the fossil fuel industry successfully replaced existing nuclear generators with coal-fired plants.
If I was a fossil fuel lobbyist I'd be pushing new nuclear hard.
Are you seriously arguing that fossil fuel lobbyists do the exact opposite of what fossil fuel lobbyists have been recorded doing? In other words, are you trying to argue for a proven falsehood?
If so, we have a term for that: alternative facts. Go try and deceive someone else.
Cost is cost ... [in 70 years] it's not got cheaper, in fact the opposite has happened.
I suppose you must still think a loaf of bread still costs the same it did 70 years ago, too. Prices are malleable thanks to the free market ... and government subsidies. Why would anyone be so anti-nuclear when it's another valuable tool for displacing fossil fuels? Are you shilling for the oil and gas industry?
Absolutely; but it's hard to go that deep without someone arguing about hairs and how to split them. It's kind of stupid to be arguing which is "safer" when both are orders of magnitude better than fossil fuels. In order to successfully displace fossil fuel generation, we'll need to emphasize all the others: nuclear, solar, wind, pumped hydro, grid batteries, geothermal, etc. None of them are one-size-fits-all. They're all tools in the toolbox for designing an energy system that works for any given context.
That's fair: construction workers aren't magically able to construct more than one reactor over those 10 years. It was late at night and I also lost track of the original point of this whole thread. The study cherry-picked rooftop solar, as opposed to utility solar, in order to prove a point. Nuclear power is safe. Fossil fuels are not safe.
Yes, they are, which is why the gifting of cherry trees is such a strong symbol of friendship! Experiencing Sakura is uniquely Japanese.
https://doyouknowjapan.com/sakura/