Fusion would solve a lot, but even if we invent room-temperature superconductors today, it would still take so much time to roll fusion out on a big scale and replace oil infrastructure with electric infrastructure.
I tend to be very pessimistic about climate change, but I hope I’m wrong.
If it was possible I would put quite some money on that geo engineering (like stratospheric aerosol injection) will be seriously discussed on a UN level within ten years. Climate change seems only to speed up and co2 emissions are still rising. At one point there is simply no alternative.
Pro tip: give more compliments and see how other people react.
To quote Not Just Bikes: “the USA wasn’t built for cars, it was destroyed for cars”
Most cities in the US were walkable and public transport oriented, but in the fifties all livable neighborhoods and city centers were bulldozed to make place for parking lots and arterial roads.
Reading the Wikipedia it seems quite unlikely, but then again maybe it’s also written by a bot.
Manager: hey I know it’s something you haven’t worked with before, but I’m sure you’ll figure it out with some googling.
Me 30 minutes later:
I’m starting to get the feeling that we are both repeating ourselves, but this is not a just a side effect, it is systematic. Turning an idea into property means only capital can play the game. In effect patents do two things: Firstly they inhibits innovation, the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do, this should be ground enough to get rid of them. Second they entrench big players, big players have more money to play the patent game and so tend to win patent fights regardless of merit. So besides not achieving their so called stated goal they also have a huge negative externality. And all this before we even take patent trolls into account.
It requires capital to obtain a patent and to defend a patent, workers are inherently excluded from this proces.
It’s a legal tool that turns ideas into property. This allows capital to exercise power over it and profit through it, and on top of that inhibits innovation. So l’d say there is no use or abuse, it’s a bad legal framework that doesn’t achieve societal benefits.
I tend to be principally against patents in general, as research suggests they actually stifle innovation rather than incentivize it. But in this case I’d say ‘let them fight, and may they both lose’.
Critical support for having human connections on the bosses time.
The world we live in… where you can’t spread misinformation in support of a possible genocide without being called out.
The UNWRA allegations were extracted using torture. Israel tortured UN workers.
If your blood isn’t boiling yet from what the west is sponsoring in Gaza, you can have some fun learning of what Belgium (and the US) did in the Congo after they “left”.
Quelle surprise, Google wants to violate your privacy.
“Shall we make it a Dubbel- or a Triple-Tap this time?”
Judas to Jesus at the last supper:
“Why did the earth suddenly teleport ten times closer to the moon.” Then probably something like: “how can an object have sufficient kinetic energy to perfectly perforate the earth but still keep it mostly in tact” also “why is the asteroid burning if it is outside of the atmosphere”. Unless Hans Zimmer was playing in the background, then I would probably say “Dear god!”.
Removed by mod
There’s nothing quite like a mouth full of dust.
I was more stating what I think will happen rather than wat we should be doing.
In terms of pure physics it is ofc easier to turn off the metaphorical tap, but in terms of power and politics we seem unable to transition to renewables. And I’m afraid once we switch on the geo-engineering button we still won’t transition. Only once oil is priced out of the market completely, be it fusion or abundant solar and wind (with energy storage), will we make the transition. But again I might be too pessimistic.