If by utilised you mean effectively stored and distributed when required, then yes I agree but most countries are a long way from that.

I think you’ve taken a couple of anomalies for the last part and generalised across all countries.

The countries that are close to 100% renewables have unique circumstances that enable them to.

For example, Iceland has a small concentrated population with easy access to geothermal energy.

Paraguay generates a lot of its electricity from hydroelectric dams as it has suitable rivers to be able to build them on. Even so, its citizens often burn firewood for heat.

Chapter 0: Internal Server Error was enough to put me off at launch.

Not unachievable, but they should be pretty high-stakes.

OP’s examples are more of a to-do list.

…where it cannot be effectively stored at present.

No, would just dilute the entire point of the bucket list.

Yes thanks.

People like to discuss tastes to understand differences of opinion and potentially change their own.

The British version is a genre-defining original which changed office behaviour across the country and finished exactly where it needed to.

The American version is a diluted on-the-nose soap opera that Gervais likes as he gets all the royalties for minimal effort.

Unfortunately, even in the UK, I’d say the USA version is now more widely known these days, especially amongst the younger generations.

Apart from actual dates.

Whilst you’re at it, phase out alcohol and provide education from a young age that is one of the most destructive drugs.

Kid… really?! Sounds like you used a poorly trained AI to help with your response.

The discussion of the idea is about communication, the phenomena themselves are indeed unbound by language, so we often use the universal language of mathematics or technical definitions to describe them.

If you understand the above then you should realise how silly your question is. Perhaps it should be rephrased as “What are the advantages/disadvantages of pop science reporting?” At which point I agree with you, it’s constrained to the limitations of the language because technicalities have been glossed over for popular consumption.

Science is an evidence-based approach to further our understanding of the universe. When good enough, it can be used to make predictions about the past or future.

It’s strange to frame the question in terms of advantages/disadvantages and kind of points to a lack of understanding on your part. Science is neutral, so like guns, it can be used by good or bad actors.

Science’s main weakness is that gathering enough evidence to prove hypotheses is a slow and often complicated process, so sometimes all it can say is “We need more data.” However, this is also it’s main strength as one would need an overwhelming body of evidence to overturn established theories.

Another weakness is that individuals with whole life experiences become reduced to statistics by necessity, making the conclusions pretty impersonal. This is also a strength as it eliminates biases from our conclusions.

Other than that, it’s responsible for all of the advantages of the modern world, including its (current) ability to support 8 billion+ humans. To try to compare perceived “disadvantages” to that is a pointless endeavour.

You clearly don’t language or logic.

Most science is underpinned by mathematics and therefore I’d argue it’s one of the only things not constrained by language.