Since adequately performing economies use too much energy, other research has formulated low energy consumption levels satisfying human needs.  What would low energy life be like?  For starters, an end to private transportation, not just switching to electric vehicles.  People will have to rely on public transit and “active” transport (e.g., walking).

Estimates put the level of energy use “compatible with avoiding 1.5ºC of global warming without relying on negative emissions technology” at around 7,500 kilowatt-hours per person per year.  Americans currently use more than ten times this level, so our energy use would need to decline drastically

Many INDCs lack necessary details, such as clarity on sectors and gases covered, details on the impact of listed mitigation actions, different metrics to aggregate gases, details on base year or reference values from which reductions or improvements would be measured, or accounting practices related to land use and the use of specific market mechanisms (

About two thirds of the available budget for keeping warming to below 2[degrees]C have already been emitted

The INDCs collectively lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to where current policies stand, but still imply a median warming of 2.6-3.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. More can be achieved, because the agreement stipulates that targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are strengthened over time, both in ambition and scope

On the other hand, emissions from the building sector are expected to rise from 9 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2004 to 11 to 16 Gt in 2030, mainly due to economic growth in developing countries (IPCC 2007). Given climate change as a global constraint to future use of fossil fuels, it is the responsibility of the industrialized nations to develop an energy efficient building stock in order to facilitate economic development elsewhere in the world. Recent policy proposals (European Commision 2011; Kelly 2009) make similar arguments and suggest sectoral reduction targets of 80% or more for developed regions.

As heat losses of buildings are minimized during transformation, energy for hot water and appliances becomes the dominant contributor to sectoral energy demand. Reducing the sectoral carbon footprint by at least 50%, as required to limit global warming to 2°C, cannot be achieved by transforming the stock alone; additional measures such as lowering consumption from hot water generation or appliances and changes that impact lifestyle, such as smaller dwellings and more people per dwelling, are required.

In 1994, The Unix-Haters Handbook was published containing a long list of missives about the software—everything from overly-cryptic command names that were optimized for Teletype machines, to irreversible file deletion, to unintuitive programs with far too many options. Over twenty years later, an overwhelming majority of these complaints are still valid even across the dozens of modern derivatives. Unix had become so widely used that changing its behavior would have challenging implications. For better

Unfortunately, it's too late to make the question more specific as this would invalidate some of the (good) answers.

While Microsoft is entirely in the right by reminding people of the terms they agreed to, many users are taking issue with the fact that they hadn’t been warned about the limit in the eight years it’s been in place, and many people are now being told they are over the limit after years of being over.

yeah I discovered too late that #310 exists and does that

My only concern with this approach is that if someone calls #valid? on the form object afterwards, it would under the hood currently delete the existing errors on the form object and revalidate. The could have unexpected side effects where the errors added by the models passed in or the service called will be lost.

My concern with this approach is still that it's somewhat brittle with the current implementation of valid? because whilst valid? appears to be a predicate and should have no side effects, this is not the case and could remove the errors applied by one of the steps above.

As you installed a development release (17.04) that had only a 9-month life span and had an End of Life (EOL) in Jan 2018, there is no way to upgrade it to 17.10 as that went EOL back in July 2018. So as you're stuck with a release without an upgrade path (as you cannot skip versions)

The “no-snaps” ship already sailed years ago…you folks missed that boat. It’s too late to wish for a return to the past. Snaps in Ubuntu have been happening for years already, and will continue regardless of any opinions expressed here.

I really can't see how we can trust browsers accept headers. :'( More about the situation than about your statement.

Safari sends following order application/xml (q is 1) application/xhtml+xml (q is 1) image/png (q is 1) text/html (q is 0.9) text/plain (q is 0.8) \*/\* (q is 0.5) So you visit www.myappp.com in safari and if the app supports .xml then Rails should render .xml file. This is not what user wants to see. User wants to see .html page not .xml page.

In the Set class we already called this - and difference, which it is ok but not really accurate because of the previous explanation, but probably not worthwhile to change it.

Basically, the standard said something, interpreters ignored it because the standard seemed illogical, but now interpreters like Bash have really confusing semantics, and no-one wants to fix it.

cles For journal articles, the generic format for a reference is as follows: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (year). Title of article. Title of Journal, xx(yy), pp–pp. doi:xx.xxxxxxxxxx