I think the general rule is that in English the currency symbol for the primary currency goes in front of the number, while the symbol for a subunit (pence, cents, etc) goes after the number.
I think the general rule is that in English the currency symbol for the primary currency goes in front of the number, while the symbol for a subunit (pence, cents, etc) goes after the number.
https://www.casio.com/us/watches/casio/product.ABL-100WE-1A/
With a heart rate monitor it's considerably more expensive.
It's just a single win because the CO2 is going right back into the atmosphere as the fuel is used (carbon neutral, not carbon negative). Still, a win is better than the loss that extracted fuels amount to.
Presumably some could be used to make plastics and everything else we make from oil. You could also bury some.
As the other commenter has mentioned, it's passed on via higher prices in the future.
>This is beside the point though. The government asks "would the average person be willing to pay $x to lower their chance of death by y%". The corporate executive asks "would I be willing to pay >$0 to lower their chance of death by y%". "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make."
Okay, but surely you don't agree that Boeing should spend infinite amounts of money making their planes safe? For instance we don't install backup engines on the off chance that all 2 engines fail. That's all I'm trying to argue, that the cold calculation/cost benefit analysis as mentioned in the OP isn't where Boeing went wrong, it's that they they undervalued the value of a human life. This was specifically mentioned in my original comment.
We used to. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
[1]https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220718-the-best-way-to-...
This seems to be more fully featured than all of those though. Maybe some could be ported over to Lambda2.