They didn't put in the biggest bid. They put in a bid that was a smaller amount of cash bundled with a waiver from the Sandyhook families that were to get a damages payout that they forgo their damages claim.
The third party evaluating the bids decided this was a better deal for Infowars' creditors, as that meant more of the bankruptcy money would be going to them, so that's why it was chosen.
To be extra clear, burning an American flag that you purchase or otherwise own is legal, first-amendment-protected free speech. Burning someone else's American flag is not. This person allegedly took down federally-owned flags and burned them, hence destruction of federal property.
Can someone put this in broader context for me? I don't follow French politics closely, but my overall understanding of events the last time I looked was this:
Is this background accurate? (As an American, my understanding of parliamentary systems is spotty.) What happened between the formation of the new government and this no-confidence vote? And where does it look like things are headed?
It said the Israeli leader was covered by immunity rules that apply to states which are not a party to the ICC. Israel is not an ICC member.
"A state cannot be held to act in a way that is incompatible with its obligations in terms of international law with regards to immunities granted to states which are not party to the ICC," the French statement said.
While this technicality may be true, it still seems like there should be a mechanism to hold people accountable for genocide that they don't have to agree to beforehand. Saying "oh we can't arrest him for crimes against humanity because he didn't already agree to be arrested for them should he ever commit them" is a diplomatic copout and a moral failure of the international framework.
Geoengineering is cheaper and easier than rapid emissions reduction
I don't know if your whole comment is sarcasm, but every part of this statement is wrong. We are in the very, very early stages of developing the technologies needed for the level of geoengineering required to mitigate what we have already done to the environment. To roll it out to the levels needed would be far more difficult and expensive that converting our entire way of life to renewables, which should really say how hard and expensive it would be given how utterly daunting of a task full conversion to renewables is.
Now, putting in token investment and paying lip service to geoengineering, that's cheaper and easier than switching to renewables. But that's not even treating the symptoms. That's just your standard con game against the broader population to try to manipulate the conversation.
Not OP, but in my circles the simplest, strongest point I've found is that no cryptocurrency has a built-in mechanism for handling mistakes. People are using these systems, and people make mistakes. Without built in accommodations, you're either
Either way, crypto is just more costly to use than traditional systems when you properly factor those risks. So the only people left using it are those who expect greater rewards to offset all that additional risk, which are just speculators and grifters.
That's the easy question: yes. The hard questions are "when?" and "how can we effectively get ready given the lack of political will?"
It's a mathematical property of regions of a 2D space that 3 will naturally meet at a point, but 4 or higher have to be contrived to meet at a point. In the US we do have the 4 corners, which is where Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, so there is precedent.
Wormholes modeled with mainstream physics are incredibly unstable, to the point that they collapse before even a single particle is able to traverse them. Proposals for ways to stabilize a wormhole rely on models that have not yet been confirmed by experiment. So any answer you get is going to be little more than conjecture, and I don't think you can get the scientific rigor it sounds like you're looking for.
It was a joke.
The virtual non-existence of enzymes that can break down right-handed proteins is almost assuredly because their use is vanishingly rare in life on Earth right now. If mirror life did escape the lab and find some way to thrive, normal life would suffer until some normal bacteria happened to mutate and create enzymes that could break it down.
I expect it to be like the Carboniferous period. Trees evolved, and nothing was around that could break down lignin, so they thrived for millions of years and caused devastation to ecosystems of the time. But dead trees represented a lot of untapped raw materials, so eventually other life evolved to break them down.
I would expect the same with mirror life. All else being equal, a few million years of devastation until life evolved ways to fight back. Or humans could dramatically speed that up by genetically engineering normal life (bacteria) with the tools to break down mirror proteins and thus attack mirror cells. It would still be devastating and would completely reshape life on the planet, but it may let humanity squeak through and continue existing.