The problem is however very visible in the current issues we're having with CO2. The CO2 we're adding to atmosphere is insignificant compared to the natural cycle. But it's apparently enough to overcome the tolerances within the biosphere, and cause rapid enough increase of CO2 to cause a rapid global warming.
It's almost certain that same can be said about extracting raw kinetic energy from the very same system. We can likely do it to some extent "for free" because it will fit within tolerances of the system, just like we can emit quite a lot of CO2 before we overload the tolerances. But beyond that, there will be a chain reaction. So theoretically, that is most certainly an issue.
Practically, at this early stage of development of these forms of power generation, it's likely well within the tolerances, and should remain like that for a long time. But then again, that's the exact same thing that best scientists in their fields thought less than a century ago. Science will likely advance enough to be able to provide some approximation on the relevant numbers in a few decades to a century. Right now, it's almost certainly not a cause for a worry when we have much greater problems, like global warming, to deal with.
I suppose you being an utter idiot in field of energy generation isn't enough for you, and you wanted to show that you're an utter idiot in field of biology as well.
Congratulations. You sure succeeded in pre-empting me pointing that obvious point out. I obviously don't need to call you an idiot if you do that yourself. Enjoy your pyrrhic victory. I applaud your zeal, if not your sanity.
That and the fact that there's an error margin within the test itself. If I remember correctly, replication of the sample for testing in the less rigorous (read: cheaper) methods is imperfect, leading to small variations.
To be fair, same company assigned very similar results to both twins. Non-identical results because of error margin in testing methodology, but similar enough for error to be negligible.
The problem is more about differential between companies, who clearly define "where you came from" in a very arbitrary fashion, making results highly questionable at best, and utterly worthless at worst.
Genetically identical individuals can have different expression of that genome based on environment. That doesn't make them any less genetically identical.
If you ever looked at a biology book, you'd know that.
You cannot make that statement in good faith, as there is insufficient data. All we know is that religious societies were the only ones to survive the series of contacts with other societies that occurred all over the planet as humanity entered the era that is known history.
This is largely correct, and one of my main worries when it comes to survival of scientific method as the primary method of generating new knowledge. Just a couple of decades ago when I was young, the biggest people who tried to push the idea that science is a religion were folks who argued against science.
And now those who are arguing for science are arguing about it in religious terms. That spells death of scientific method, and we're already seeing religious movements masquerading as science within academic circles today.
I recommend watching it. Elon isn't thinking about "now", he's thinking "in the future", and solutions need to be in place by the time that future is here. Otherwise, it would be too late.
Elon expanded on this in his Rogan interview. The goal here is to make AI not the competitor against humans, but to meld humans and AI into one cooperative hybrid being. This is his solution to the risk that Elon sees with AI, that of AI seeing humanity as competition and outcompeting us, because we lack the ability to properly communicate with a being on its own terms - we have a "bandwidth problem" in communications with electronics as Elon puts it.
It's obviously not a single cause. Which is my problem with this story, which tries to sell it as such. Global warming is likely very, VERY low on the totem pole of things that are affecting insects right now, especially because insects are among the most adaptable creatures on the planet due to their very rapid reproductive cycle. That's why pesticides have to be constantly worked on in terms of R&D. Such life forms are the least affected by a slow change like global warming, as they will adapt to it with ease. Remember, these are the life forms that adopted to being hit with everything from toxins to habitat denial from humans for a very long time with extreme rapidity, to the point where we still can't figure out how to annihilate the insects we want extinct in spite of decades of trying our very best.
This is the new narrative among those pushing the most catastrophist view of global warming.
As usual with such views, they ignore all of the obvious elephants in the room, such as massive escalation of war on malaria which is purposefully designed to destroy as much insect habitat as possible to save tens to hundreds of millions of human lives, or significant increase in agricultural efficiency due to insecticide usage having spread to developing counties and spreading of farmlands into rainforest areas. None of these things that are literally targeting insect populations are relevant, nope. It's the global warming.
You also show ignorance of basic IT security concepts such as "risk assessment" and "value of the target compared to costs to attack it successfully in a meaningful way".
Concepts that insurance companies you rate so highly understand very well.
The "excuse" is quite simple. Flash works, and implementation has been paid for. Unless you are willing to pay for new implementation, you don't get to tell people that they can't use their existing implementation "because reasons".
It's honestly baffling how many people are so ignorant of the most basic concepts of "budgeting" and "sunk costs". No wonder so many are living paycheck to paycheck.
How about you try to actually discredit my points? I've seen exactly two reports of genuinely novel grid applications in South Australia so far. Neither is suitable for anything other than edge case it was applied for.
Beyond the whole "vice, the company that makes it's money by spinning and lying" part, it's always possible to increase mining efforts if needed. We're very flexible that way, and rare earths are not actually "rare" in the common meaning of the word. Most of them are very common in fact. Problem is that chemical processes needed for extraction and refinement are exceedingly toxic and polluting, which is why much of the West stopped mining them. Such processes also require significant infrastructural investment, which is why many developing countries can't afford it at current price points.
The sweet spot for most of those is a country that doesn't really care about environmental protection, yet has enough technological expertise and funding. That's China in today's world. Should demand outstrip current mining capacity, you'll see investments in other poor countries, and exemptions to environmental rules in the Western countries, which would increase mining capacity by several hundred percent in a matter of a few years just from known deposits alone.
This particular issue is not the problem preventing us from getting enough neodymium for wind turbine magnets etc. That part of the equation is easily solvable, because technological solution has already been found. The obstacle is, just like with nuclear, that of ideology. And ideologies are the first thing to change when sufficient pressure is applied by reality.
Hot air it is. I've done the analysis on this deployment already, quoting from paper by grip company that deployed it. Spoiler: it's not applicable to large grids in the form it is implemented.
Which is why it's not rolled out on large scale anywhere, in spite of producing great savings in that particular case. Essentially it's good for "large feed in over long range expensive interconnect, notable amount of local intermittent power generation, low local consumption" case. Such cases are found, like that particular deployment, on fairly isolated islands.
Beyond that, it's not workable in the way it's implemented due to multiple engineering issues.
I'm glad that this problem which no one else has solved has been solved by you.
Have you considered becoming the richest man on the planet by incorporating and selling this idea to literally every single grid operator? That is, of course, if you have solved the problems that make battery technology of very limited usefulness for purpose as of writing this, and not just blowing hot air as most people claiming to have an easy solution to great technological problems of the world are.
Former is solved by cutting down the more recent regulatory items that have little to nothing to do with actual safety of operation, and everything to do with making nuclear power less competitive.
Latter is solved by either storing it underground or recycling it. Former is currently being held back by NIMBY style green activism, latter is being held back by nuclear proliferation fears.
There are no unsolved technical issues here, unlike with solar and wind. Issues here are political, ideological and bureaucratic.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is however very visible in the current issues we're having with CO2. The CO2 we're adding to atmosphere is insignificant compared to the natural cycle. But it's apparently enough to overcome the tolerances within the biosphere, and cause rapid enough increase of CO2 to cause a rapid global warming.
It's almost certain that same can be said about extracting raw kinetic energy from the very same system. We can likely do it to some extent "for free" because it will fit within tolerances of the system, just like we can emit quite a lot of CO2 before we overload the tolerances. But beyond that, there will be a chain reaction. So theoretically, that is most certainly an issue.
Practically, at this early stage of development of these forms of power generation, it's likely well within the tolerances, and should remain like that for a long time. But then again, that's the exact same thing that best scientists in their fields thought less than a century ago. Science will likely advance enough to be able to provide some approximation on the relevant numbers in a few decades to a century. Right now, it's almost certainly not a cause for a worry when we have much greater problems, like global warming, to deal with.
I suppose you being an utter idiot in field of energy generation isn't enough for you, and you wanted to show that you're an utter idiot in field of biology as well.
Congratulations. You sure succeeded in pre-empting me pointing that obvious point out. I obviously don't need to call you an idiot if you do that yourself. Enjoy your pyrrhic victory. I applaud your zeal, if not your sanity.
That escalated quickly.
That and the fact that there's an error margin within the test itself. If I remember correctly, replication of the sample for testing in the less rigorous (read: cheaper) methods is imperfect, leading to small variations.
To be fair, same company assigned very similar results to both twins. Non-identical results because of error margin in testing methodology, but similar enough for error to be negligible.
The problem is more about differential between companies, who clearly define "where you came from" in a very arbitrary fashion, making results highly questionable at best, and utterly worthless at worst.
Genetically identical individuals can have different expression of that genome based on environment. That doesn't make them any less genetically identical.
If you ever looked at a biology book, you'd know that.
You cannot make that statement in good faith, as there is insufficient data. All we know is that religious societies were the only ones to survive the series of contacts with other societies that occurred all over the planet as humanity entered the era that is known history.
You should take your own advice.
Observable reality.
This is largely correct, and one of my main worries when it comes to survival of scientific method as the primary method of generating new knowledge. Just a couple of decades ago when I was young, the biggest people who tried to push the idea that science is a religion were folks who argued against science.
And now those who are arguing for science are arguing about it in religious terms. That spells death of scientific method, and we're already seeing religious movements masquerading as science within academic circles today.
Outcompeting your competition takes many forms in evolution. That is one of those forms, yes.
So?
I recommend watching it. Elon isn't thinking about "now", he's thinking "in the future", and solutions need to be in place by the time that future is here. Otherwise, it would be too late.
Elon expanded on this in his Rogan interview. The goal here is to make AI not the competitor against humans, but to meld humans and AI into one cooperative hybrid being. This is his solution to the risk that Elon sees with AI, that of AI seeing humanity as competition and outcompeting us, because we lack the ability to properly communicate with a being on its own terms - we have a "bandwidth problem" in communications with electronics as Elon puts it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Discussion on AI and the technology being talked about here starts at 12 minutes.
"Much", and a tiny, tiny portion was wrong. Overwhelming majority was right.
Citation: religious societies survived the evolutionary selection process. Non-religious did not.
It's obviously not a single cause. Which is my problem with this story, which tries to sell it as such. Global warming is likely very, VERY low on the totem pole of things that are affecting insects right now, especially because insects are among the most adaptable creatures on the planet due to their very rapid reproductive cycle. That's why pesticides have to be constantly worked on in terms of R&D. Such life forms are the least affected by a slow change like global warming, as they will adapt to it with ease. Remember, these are the life forms that adopted to being hit with everything from toxins to habitat denial from humans for a very long time with extreme rapidity, to the point where we still can't figure out how to annihilate the insects we want extinct in spite of decades of trying our very best.
This is the new narrative among those pushing the most catastrophist view of global warming.
As usual with such views, they ignore all of the obvious elephants in the room, such as massive escalation of war on malaria which is purposefully designed to destroy as much insect habitat as possible to save tens to hundreds of millions of human lives, or significant increase in agricultural efficiency due to insecticide usage having spread to developing counties and spreading of farmlands into rainforest areas. None of these things that are literally targeting insect populations are relevant, nope. It's the global warming.
You appear to have misspelled "their product got dropped from the tool portfolio".
Thank you for your deep and well explained reasoning. I have reconsidered my view point because of it.
You also show ignorance of basic IT security concepts such as "risk assessment" and "value of the target compared to costs to attack it successfully in a meaningful way".
Concepts that insurance companies you rate so highly understand very well.
The "excuse" is quite simple. Flash works, and implementation has been paid for. Unless you are willing to pay for new implementation, you don't get to tell people that they can't use their existing implementation "because reasons".
It's honestly baffling how many people are so ignorant of the most basic concepts of "budgeting" and "sunk costs". No wonder so many are living paycheck to paycheck.
How about you try to actually discredit my points? I've seen exactly two reports of genuinely novel grid applications in South Australia so far. Neither is suitable for anything other than edge case it was applied for.
Beyond the whole "vice, the company that makes it's money by spinning and lying" part, it's always possible to increase mining efforts if needed. We're very flexible that way, and rare earths are not actually "rare" in the common meaning of the word. Most of them are very common in fact. Problem is that chemical processes needed for extraction and refinement are exceedingly toxic and polluting, which is why much of the West stopped mining them. Such processes also require significant infrastructural investment, which is why many developing countries can't afford it at current price points.
The sweet spot for most of those is a country that doesn't really care about environmental protection, yet has enough technological expertise and funding. That's China in today's world. Should demand outstrip current mining capacity, you'll see investments in other poor countries, and exemptions to environmental rules in the Western countries, which would increase mining capacity by several hundred percent in a matter of a few years just from known deposits alone.
This particular issue is not the problem preventing us from getting enough neodymium for wind turbine magnets etc. That part of the equation is easily solvable, because technological solution has already been found. The obstacle is, just like with nuclear, that of ideology. And ideologies are the first thing to change when sufficient pressure is applied by reality.
Hot air it is. I've done the analysis on this deployment already, quoting from paper by grip company that deployed it. Spoiler: it's not applicable to large grids in the form it is implemented.
Which is why it's not rolled out on large scale anywhere, in spite of producing great savings in that particular case. Essentially it's good for "large feed in over long range expensive interconnect, notable amount of local intermittent power generation, low local consumption" case. Such cases are found, like that particular deployment, on fairly isolated islands.
Beyond that, it's not workable in the way it's implemented due to multiple engineering issues.
I'm glad that this problem which no one else has solved has been solved by you.
Have you considered becoming the richest man on the planet by incorporating and selling this idea to literally every single grid operator? That is, of course, if you have solved the problems that make battery technology of very limited usefulness for purpose as of writing this, and not just blowing hot air as most people claiming to have an easy solution to great technological problems of the world are.
Former is solved by cutting down the more recent regulatory items that have little to nothing to do with actual safety of operation, and everything to do with making nuclear power less competitive.
Latter is solved by either storing it underground or recycling it. Former is currently being held back by NIMBY style green activism, latter is being held back by nuclear proliferation fears.
There are no unsolved technical issues here, unlike with solar and wind. Issues here are political, ideological and bureaucratic.