Ah, so we’ve finally hit the end point of The Slow Breakup
he/him. LARPer, Nerd Organizer, Web Dev.
Mastodon admin, joeterranova@leftist.network
Not the CNBC guy but I’ve got Nihilist Stock Market advice🌻
Ah, so we’ve finally hit the end point of The Slow Breakup
Correct. Green hydrogen is expensive and energy intensive, and is not as cost effective as getting it from natural gas. So currently most hydrogen comes from natural gas.
But, unless we find ways to make batteries without rare earth metals, we will be better suited to moving towards fuel cell, once we have the excess electricity from renewables needed to split hydrogen from water. For now, batteries are the better option.
Correct. Splitting hydrogen from water is quite energy intensive. Burning hydrogen into oxygen to make water releases energy, but not as much energy as it takes to split the hydrogen off in the first place. The reason to use hydrogen fuel cells is that the extra energy needed to generate the hydrogen is still far better than the carbon output and costly materials needed for making and charging a battery. Batteries need rare earth metals, and they lose their charging ability over time. Splitting water into hydrogen creates “potential energy” from the later creation of water again, making it a useful, clean way to store electricity.
Same as the plans for using cranes stacking concrete bricks to store electricity. It takes more electric to stack them than is produced by unstacking them. But it’s a clean way to store potential energy, and far more efficient and sustainable than a battery.
Maybe instead of trying to train an AI powered car to deal with the insane chaos that is the road system, what if we designed something to remove that chaos? Maybe like a path that’s just for these self driving cars. There’s a network of paths to get you to your final destination.
But if we did that, there’d still be our current problems of running out of fuel, or battery power. Which could be solved by electrifying those paths.
But it’d be very difficult to have each of those individual cars switch between paths. Maybe it would be easier if instead of the cars switching paths, the people switched paths. Maybe we just make really long cars, and numerous people can get in them, and then switch cars as needed. People would need to know where to switch between these long cars. So we’d want to set schedules of when they’re running to where, and then have an app or something that just told you where to get on and off.
And if they’re really long, maybe we could kickstart this before we have self-driving abilities anyway. We could just have one person in the front driving it.
And maybe to reduce the need for rubber, instead of regular wheels on a road, they could just be metal wheels on metal tracks.
Just throwing some ideas out there.
sure, but not having POPCNT means way older than not having TPM
That was the entire point of mortgages. You’re paying interest, and could end up paying well over the original house value, but over a long enough time period, via inflation and property values increasing, you’re still making out ahead of renting. Depending on the mortgage interest rate, you could be better off not paying it off early.
For example, I refinanced my house at 2.6%. Afterwards I started paying extra principal payments. My mother the accountant told me to stop. The interest rate is lower than inflation, I’m better off using the money for other things or putting it into higher yield savings accounts instead of paying it off earlier than schedule.
Right, the copyright is specifically for random essays added to the book, so that they could release it and say it wasn’t entirely public domain, so you shouldn’t copy it. A weird place to say “copyright fuels creativity” when it’s clearly not the reason for the copyright here.
It’s important to note who benefited from it and how, because it explains why there was such a fight to stop an obviously cruel and barbaric practice. Even the Founding Fathers knew it was wrong, but most of them still did it. They kicked the problem down the road because tobacco wasn’t profitable to grow in America anymore, so they thought the “problem” would solve itself in a generation or two. Then the Cotton Gin made slavery profitable, so it boomed.
We need to be able to talk how it was beneficial, and who benefited from it, so we can see why it was so hard to end. Because we have a very similar problem with fossil fuels, and capitalism. They’re both destroying the world and causing us to do barbaric things to people. But there’s resistance to ending dependence on both, because they have benefits, even though most of those benefits go to an elite few.
Even thinking of it in terms of non-fediverse platforms. reddit often had multiple subreddits about the same exact topic. But the communities were different, often even splinters from each other because of disagreements on content and moderation. You end up with the original sub, Foo, followed by FooMemes, and TrueFoo, TrollFoo, FooJerk, etc.
If communities start getting merged together automatically, it’s going to end up causing problems. Most likely the culture of someplace like lemmy.ml will end up being marketedly different than some other instances (and already is). I would not want posts from a memes group there mixed with a memes group from elsewhere. Grouping the same post client side, sure. But there’s a reason for separate groups about the same topic.
I have a VPN that I pay less than 100 a year for. Here’s some examples of what I use it for:
Doctors will not perform lethal injection. It goes against the Hippocratic Oath:“First do no harm”