It’s “sustainable” as in “we can keep producing methane even when oil fields are empty”, not as in “methane does not produce greenhouse gases when burned”
Important distinctions. Fortunately there are lots of other renewable innovations to celebrate. I like to believe we are getting closer to the solarpunk future humanity deserves!
For anyone down voting, how many species have humans caused to go extinct? Is our wellbeing worth the permanent deletion of every other species on the planet? Fuck humanity.
If it's getting all of the carbon for that methane from atmospheric carbon dioxide then it should at least be neutral. The production should, if that is how it's working, remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as burning the product would release. This would make it a hell of a lot better than fossil extraction since that's taking carbon not currently in the atmosphere and then releasing it in to the atmosphere
Those type of efuels are inefficient and expensive. Especially when we can make use of the electricity directly, without stupid conversation methods. There might be the odd edge cases here and there, but this is not going to be a "sustainable" alternative to fossil fuels.
This is one of the most exciting news stories in the technology world. I’m sorry you don’t see the significance of 30 nations signing an agreement on ai ethics and safety…
“In recognition of the transformative positive potential of AI, and as part of ensuring wider international cooperation on AI, we resolve to sustain an inclusive global dialogue that engages existing international fora and other relevant initiatives and contributes in an open manner to broader international discussions, and to continue research on frontier AI safety to ensure that the benefits of the technology can be harnessed responsibly for good and for all. We look forward to meeting again in 2024.”
The takeaway:
we resolve to sustain an inclusive global dialogue that engages existing international fora and other relevant initiatives and contributes in an open manner to broader international discussions, and to continue research on frontier AI safety to ensure that the benefits of the technology can be harnessed responsibly for good and for all.
Minus the bs:
We resolve to keep talking about this. Let’s meet again next year.
This doesn’t belong here. It contains nothing about science. It’s basically an investment marketing abstract with a bunch of oversaturated images shuffled in.
The simulation theory is literally rejecting the old gods and creating universal system administrators as the new ones.
My biggest frustration of the simulation theory is the thought that things don’t exist unless you are interacting with them. This means that the universe revolves around the observer. The same thoughts that support simulation theory also support creation theory.
I believe that simulation theory also reinforces the idea that there are people who are NPCs who don’t matter. This is easier for people in power to believe who have people serving their needs.
I think this line of thought is most attractive to self-serving individuals who want to believe that everything in the universe exists for them and everyone else needs to either support them or get out of the way.
When people tell me they they believe that the universe is a simulation, my first thought is that they will treat others poorly because it doesn’t matter. In their perspective, the simulation will sort it out in their favor.
I believe that simulation theory also reinforces the idea that there are people who are NPCs who don’t matter.
Isn't this part of sociopathic behaviour?
Not to mention the "don't exist unless I see it" sounds more like a 2yr old's worldview to me..
What’s with you spamming this shitty website? I see you changed your name from ultra_unlimited to something less obvious but that doesn’t work when we can see your history brother
Sorry my blog article offends you. It was a fun meditation exploring a chapter of history I was not familiar with. Plimpton 322 has been in the news and I wanted to raise awareness around Eratosthenes following the blows to the Pythagorean legacy.
Pretty pictures, but the standard reminders for putting solar in stupid places weren’t addressed, and still apply:
Solar panel manufacturing, financing, and installation remain the bottlenecks. We therefore need to make the most of every panel/kW installed, not just install more.
Panels therefore need to be installed where they get the maximum sunlight possible: no shade, up high, facing mostly upwards with preferably a slight tilt towards the equator. Vertical is bad unless you’re in the arctic.
There remains no shortage of uncovered roofspace. A given m² of panel is going to produce much more energy on a half decent roof than anywhere else except a tracking array.
Even if you somehow manage to run out of roof, building more roof (e.g. covering parking lots) is going to be better in every way than trying to squeeze the panels into other stupid places.
Very dense areas full of skyscrapers don’t really have parking lots - but the windows aren’t really going to do any better; they’ll be shaded 75% of the time. We want windows on large buildings to be shaded; it decreases solar heat gain and therefore aircon loads.
ultra-unlimited.com
Top