I'm trying to find information on what sections of Google/Alphabet make what revenue. How do you know that AdWords in the majority of their advertising revenue?
Phones already support wireless charging. Why remove wired charging because you don't use it? It is harder to use a phone while it is on a wireless charger vs use a wired charger.
If you owe a bank thousands, you have a problem; owe a bank millions, the bank has a problem. It isn't in hospitals best interest to have people go bankrupt.
I'm pretty sure that depends on which "Vikings" you are talking about, Swedes vs Danes & Norwegians. Also vikings refers to people engaged in raiding, so people who were engaged in trade would not be vikings.
That allows them to avoid the problem, but why introduce the problem in the first place? Why not use something that is intended to be used as a crypto library?
Why was BoringSSL chosen as the backend? According to Google,
> Although BoringSSL is an open source project, it is not intended for general use, as OpenSSL is. We don't recommend that third parties depend upon it. Doing so is likely to be frustrating because there are no guarantees of API or ABI stability.
Climate is long term patterns. Weather is what is happening at a specific time. If the distinction wasn't made then someone could argue that a cold winter day disproves warming.
Why is a 1.5° maximum a target that should be aimed for? William Nordhaus says a 3.5° maximum is the optimal target. His models show that a 3.5° maximum would result in a net benefit of 30 trillion whereas a 2.5° maximum would be a detriment of 50 trillion[1]. That is to say the reduction in damage would be far less than the cost of implementing such a policy. The cost for a 1.5° maximum target would be even more severe.
[1]W. Nordhaus, “Projections and Uncertainties about Climate Change in an Era of Minimal Climate Policies,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 333–360, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1257/pol.20170046.
edit: This comment is currently sitting at -2. If you think a 1.5° target is optimal, you should explain why you think so rather than just down voting this post. The paper I linked to is by William Nordhaus who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2018 for his work related to the economics of climate change.
It certainly does hurt the credibility of people saying we need drastic changes now based upon the models. If the answer might change next year, then making a drastic change based upon the current projections seems foolhardy.