no. that's thermodynamically impossible.
though it is true that fission and fusion are opposites, you cannot gain energy by fissing and fusing the same material. There's an inverted bell curve where medium sized elements are the lowest energy state. You can get energy by making atoms more medium, fusing the smallest atoms or fissing the biggest ones. Doing the opposite costs energy.
or an 1814.
The problems are systemic and the humans in the system are incentivized to perpetuate the system.
Its not stupidity.
I'd much rather they make California the 13th province.
What specifically do you think that OSM maintainers should be doing to stop this instead of maintaining OSM?
Also coup has a p.
Better to make california the 13th province.
It also requires you to campaign tactically. Kamala showed exactly what happens when you don't.
Stop blaming the voters for kamala's bad decisions.
she threw her campaign when her campaign chose to abandon the very vocal block of anti-genocide voters who had enough votes to swing the election.
if your campaign can only succeed if several millions of people to change their minds suddenly, you ran a losing campaign from the beginning.
Pretty much every part of the EU is in some way negotiable. You absolutely can join the EU without adopting the currency.
The main exception is Schengen. You can't become any kind of EU country without being part of the single market/open boarders agreement.
Every study uses sampling. They don't have the resources to check everything. I have to imagine it took a lot of work to verify conclusively whether something was or was not generated. It's a much larger sample size than a lot of studies.
It takes months if not years for a case to be appealed to the supeme court. They don't even accept most cases.
Any court federal can issue an order on this if a case is brought. Courts cannot do anything unless asked. That's kind of how the legal process works. Someone, or some AG will file a suit. Might take a few days or weeks.
He pled not guilty. You don't plead innocence in court.
He has to prove that he is not guilty of the case brought by the prosecution. That's what not guilty means. He only has to disprove the specifics of the case brought against him.
Its the procetutor's job to prove, it is the defendant's job to disprove.
Pleading not guilty is the right choice. Either his lawyers think he's not guilty, and this plea lets them beat the charges, or he is guilty and this plea delays the inevitable.
If he pled guilty that would skip the main part of the trial and go straight to sentencing. Pleading guilty is rarely a good idea unless you are making a deal for a reduced sentence.