Filming / photography in public is a First Amendment protected activity.
Filming / photography in public is a First Amendment protected activity.
Shouldn’t the pipeline have failed unless the functional tests passed?
Generalizations that are oversimplified to the point of lacking all nuance are probably untrue because there are bound to be exceptions. Instead, try including ‘many’, ‘most’, or such as an easy remedy.
Specifically, landlords can create value when they handle property management and maintenance (and the related costs) efficiently. It is wrong that greed has made that so rare.
Didn’t forget, that just isn’t relevant to the assertion that “plastic can’t be recycled”. The second use of the plastic doesn’t have to be a form which requires the exact same properties as the initial use. The remains of a bottle don’t have to be remade into another bottle. There are still nearly infinite possible uses for the plastic.
hardly any plastic is actually recyclable
Almost every thermoplastic is recyclable easily, though not necessarily profitably (because the new materials are so cheap).
Recycling that PET bottle into a different usable object would involve cleaning it, cutting it into a shape appropriate for your chosen remanufacturing process (filament or flakes), heating it to melted but not too hot, then forming (fdm, molding, etc.).
My guess would be that getting a durable graphic printed on PET is more difficult since we don’t see that, and adhesive or wrapped labels are almost certainly more expensive than printing would be if it were easy.
Edit to add: I agree that more responsibility needs to be on the manufacturer, but don’t buy into the misinformation that plastic can’t be recycled. Make it more expensive to use new plastic than recycled material.
FYI, a fork is being carried on by interested parties: https://community.mycroft.ai/t/faq-ovos-neon-and-the-future-of-the-mycroft-voice-assistant/13496
as we know bandwidth is extremely expensive
No. You very obviously don’t know how bandwidth is handled for large providers. They don’t pay per gb, and instead have peering agreements with other networks. Google generally doesn’t have to pay these other networks, as Google has the web applications that the other networks’ customers expect to be able to use.
No, that isn’t accurate and isn’t getting it.
All the data caps today are for total cumulative quantity per billing cycle. That is not a reliable method for controlling what actually bogs things down, which is the bandwidth used at any moment (speed).
Limiting bandwidth is also done by most ISPs today, but that’s not what this is asking to change. The data caps are exclusively a way to charge more.