If you use median, removing or not of 1000 people from a pool of millions indeed has zero impact. My guess is that they worded it like that because they assume people don't knownwhat a median is, so they describe the practical effect

They are not excluded, it's just the the number of people is used, not the amount of money

For Harris, yes. For Biden: just "not anymore". Which can happen when you have geriatric folks doing this kind of job.

Bolivians don't need CIA approval to plot a coup

Do you really think there is no alternative? Isn't it more a matter of making place for an alternative, and then it will turn up?

I totally understand that (and Im sorry for your loss). But that objectively helps the guy who would not care at all (as opposed to at least trying to put a little bit of pressure) and actually encourage them to go for an even more radical "final solution". Voting is always picking the least evil. The US system simply does not allow you a serious choice - it would be better to direct your anger against that system, instead of against the least evil of the real options.

You realise this worldview takes away all agency from Bolivians, right? Evo shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, and it was massive uprising of mostly city folks that stopped it. Sure, maybe the CIA tried to influence the result a bit, but it's not like this result came out of nowhere.

I'm pretty sure they'll do increasingly farcical votes for some time after.

That's a short but touching poem.

Electric cars do charge when braking. Obviously the energy recuperated is less then waht was needed to drive that fast in the first place. Using driving wind would just increase the energy needed to drive that speed and would be net negative.

NDA, not BJP, got 293 seats

I mean traditional-farm animals, so animals at a traditional farm. Sorry, not a native speaker.

Oh I know. My point is that traditional farm animals basically don't exist, in the same way that manually harvested grain doesn't really exist anymore

Yes, possible in theory. Quite hard to find in practice

In case anyone takes that seriously: farmed animals mostly eat industrial agricultural food. And they need 10 kilo of food for every kilo of meat. So you're basically killing ten times as many farmland animals when eating meat compared to earing plants directly.

Not really, many many more people are B12 insufficient than there are vegans/vegetarians. And much of what B12 you get is because supplements are given...to the animals. See e.g. https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/carnivores-need-vitamin-b12-supplements/2013/10/30

And here I am with 35 days, which we're expected to take.

Preventable, but they still happened, even with the crazy security at plants. But what you're saying is like "we've only had small earthquakes so far, so there are likely to be no big ones". When it's really absolutely the other way around.

Also "to spite", not "in spite of"

The danger of nuclear isn't so much on the daily stats of what actually went wrong, but in the tiny risk of having huge problems. The worst case scenario for a Chernobyl style disaster is actually losing huge parts of Europe. Even in well run plants, if enough things go wrong at the same time, it could still mean losing the nearest city. These "black swan" events are hard for humans to think clearly about, as we are not used to working with incredibly small chances (like deciding to plan for a 1000 year storm or not).