Capital One is a bank (technically a "bank holding company")

All credit cards are backed by a bank. Look at your credit card, it will say something like "Issued by XYZ bank" on the back somewhere. Banks have access to capital, both their own and capital reserves made available to them by the Fed system

So when you swipe your card, the bank transfers money from their accounts to the merchants accounts, then marks the debit on your account that you get when you get your statement.

No they won't. You are trying to sound clever by thinking you "figured out a loophole" that disproves my statement.

Source: Owned 2 laundromats in my life. Was audited once. Never had to provide a utility report.

> In that case it actually would be simple

I know it is possible, but IRS agents are not going door to door looking up utility bill records for small time laundromats.

I don't know about mattress stores, but laundromats are mostly cash businesses with no receipts. So you could open a laundromat, do $1500 in actual business, say you did $5000 in business, and launder $3500, and it's not simple to disprove.

There is a small collectors marker for gift cards for large companies that went out of business.

But generally yes the card itself is worthless

> It's important to note that the concept of time as the fourth dimension is a purely human construct, used to describe the progression of events and to provide a frame of reference for understanding the world around us. The concept of time does not have a physical existence in the same way that other dimensions, such as length, width, and height, do.

This is absolutely false. Spacetime is the fabric of reality, as described in Einsteins Special theory of Relativity, which is one of the most tested and proven scientific theories ever created.

Time is not a "thought construct". It is an actual dimension of reality

> saying they are zero carbon footprint is not true

Fair point. I was specifically focusing on the reaction, but your point is a god one. However, the carbon footprint of building a reactor of any type can't really be avoided.

There is ample storage that exists, today, for storing spent fuel rods.

Yes they are. Wind only generates power when the wind is blowing,. Coal has a carbon footprint per unit of electricity made.

> . Fusion however, if fully realized in its most ideal form, would allow us essentially turn seawater into fuel

Incorrect. Seawater is not H3 and cannot be fused.

That's not really a concern. It's tiny amounts, we have ample places to put it, that is a political issue, not a science problem

From an electrical grid perspective, not from "how it makes energy" perspective

And H3 is not the most abundant element in the universe.

Not much. We have nuclear power already. Fission and fusion aren't all that different if you are just looking at them as power sources. Both have 0 carbon footprint. Both would be used to biol water to turn a steam turbine.

We aren't all the same, biologically. Every person (besides identical twins) has a unique DNA structure. There is no "human genome", there are 8 billion human genomes.

Lots of reasons

• General cognitive decline

• Loneliness/isolation causes them to be more trusting of people who are nice to them

• Not keeping up with the latest information on scams can make them unaware of the scam they are falling for

• Financial desperation can lead them to turn a blind eye to something most people would be suspicious of.

• Once they have been scammed they can be too embarassed to let thier family know and so keep getting scammed

> it asked if there were any energy losses in the experiment.

No, when you burn something, no energy is lost. There is a fixed amount of energy in the universe and we cannot create or destroy energy. All we can do is transform it from one form to another.

When people say energy is "lost", it is the imperfect transformation of energy from one for to the other. If you turn mechanical energy into electrical energy (via an alternator or something) it's not a 100% conversion. You will turn 90% of the mechanical energy into electrical energy, and 10% of the energy into heat energy. The amount of energy is constant and unchanged, but the transformation from one form to the other is less than 100% efficient

When you burn something, no energy is lost. You are just converting matter (which is just bound up energy) into light energy, heat energy, and a different kind of matter (smoke and ash). The same amount of energy exists in the universe before you burned the thing and after

Because the water is locked up in zillions of cells, which are surrounded by cellular membranes, giving them a stiffness. A Tomato is 95% water. But it feels solid when you pick it up. Same reason

Think of it this way: Take a basketball. Cut a hole in it. Fill it with water. The basketball is now something like 90% water. But when you touch it, it feels solid. Shrink that basketball down to celluar size, and put a zillion of them together to make a human, and you have a solid feeling human that is mostly water.

I don't think there is any actual architectural reason, just aesthetics and design

Places with very high ceilings feel more roomy than ones with small ceilings, and airports get very crowded, so a more roomy feeling will make passengers feel better about the space.

Also you, as a passenger, only see a small part of the airport. There is a whole other ecosystem of people working and running the place, usually on floors above the bottom floor, which means the cieling is higher to allow extra floors

Eating less calories than your body burns is being in caloric deficit

In general, it takes 9-15 calories per pound to maintain your body weight, depending on how active you are. If you are mostly sedentary, it's around 9, if you are moderately active it's around 12, if you are very active it's around 15

So if you are moderately active person (12 calories per pound to maintain your weight) and you weigh 250 pounds, you daily caloric requirement is 250 * 12 = 3000 calories. If you eat 3000 calories a day, you are at caloric stasis, and you will stay 250, if you eat more that 3000 calories a day, you are in caloric excess, and will gain weight. If you eat less than 3000 calories a day, you are in caloric deficit, and you will lose weight

These are all generalities, every body and metabolism is unique and can modify these numbers a bit.

They did the right thing at the right time. When it was first launch, it solved a problem: How could an average user find things on the internet in an easy, non threatening way?

Pre Google, search engines were designed with horrible UI's, plastered with ads, pop ups, and they didn't return very relevant results. Seriously, I was a heavy internet user in those days and the search engines out there were TERRIBLE. It was just understood that to find what you wanted, you had to use at least 3-5 searches on multiple different search engine. There was even a search engine that search other search engines (Metacrawler) to try and make this easier. It made using the internet a frustrating, non useful experience for novices.

Then along comes Google. A clean, blank screen with a logo and search bar. That was it. You typed what you wanted, and got the result you were looking for. It was simple, non frightening, and it worked. For the first time your grandmother could figure out how to search the internet all on her own. It simply dominated every other search engine in terms of usability and functionality, and they all vanished into obscurity shortly after.

This was all happening at the time the internet was really hitting the mainstream, so it just became part of the lexicon, to get information on the internet became "to Google it", and once somehting enters the lexicon like that, it's nearly impossible to dislodge

We don't know where the center of the universe is, or if it even has a center.

All we know if anywhere we look, the universe is expanding at the same rate. If everything around you is expanding at the same rate, then you are in the center of that thing. If everywhere you go in the universe, it is expanding around you at the same rate, then every point in the universe could be defined as "the center". But we can't actually prove that