I agree, the core technology here should be the display, everything else is already figured out and can be externally connected.

Can anybody explain to me why it is so hard to make a proper transparent display instead of these monstrosities? We already have LCDs, polarizers, faraday rotators, optic fibre multiplexing, piezoelectric materials...what's the catch?

Fuck, at this rate profanity and spelling mistakes are going to start becoming a badge of honor.

Yes, this is the solution. Each user needs to know a certain critical number of other users in person who they can trust (and trust that they won't lie about bots, like u/spez) in order for there to be a mesh of trust where you can verify if any user is human in a max of 6 hops.

tl;dr: if you have no real-life friends...it's all bots :P

It was before I scrolled down. After reading the other comments, I'm now at 80% (still) 😅

Oh, that's slightly troubling ... eheh 😅

Clumsy. Did they at least pick them up on the way out?

Fine. Apart from the drama of designing, managing the plant, disposal, storage and guarding of residue, waste of mining and preparing the fuel and being a constant target for assholes (e.g. ZNPP), I have no major problem with nuclear power.

Comparing with most sources today, it's one of the cleanest and most reliable, but it's not much cheaper than wind/solar if you account for the construction/maintenance/safety/insurance/dismantlement costs (last time I checked it was 0.06-0.15 per kWh).

Still, I placed it really far down in the list, because it's perfect for baseload power and should be the last of our concerns and the last option we ditch when addressing climate change (looking at you, Merkel).

PS: on second thought, everybody also vastly underestimates the massive cost of disposing and recycling wind turbines and solar panels...yea :/

Thought experiment: burn a fuel, now how much energy do you think you have to use to go capture all the CO2 molecules from the air and turn them into a material? At best, you're going to need twice as much energy to recapture the fuel as what you got from burning it.

But you say: "the energy to power CO2 capture will come from green sources". Yes, but these require energy to be produced and you're encumbering already lower density energy sources than fuel with reversing CO2 debt, when we need those energy sources to power everything else.

It's a good way to kick the can down the road and say "we'll fix it later, when we have lots of cheap energy that we can afford to waste."

The answer is, broadly in this order:

• Don't cut old forests, these are the best at absorbing CO2 and keeping it in the ground.
• Minimize forest fires with strategic multi-species tiling, spacing, having grazers eat biofuel
• Reduce energy consumption through mass transit, home, agricultural and industrial innovation to improve efficiency and reduce waste
• If you are already not cutting forests, plant trees (takes them centuries to become efficient), grasses and seaweed where adequate (e.g. Scottish highlands) and try to sequester them in swamps, mines or furniture.
• Move to 100% green energy sources
• Use emission-neutral vehicles
• Invent batteries that can store surplus energy for baseload power and shut down nuclear powerplants (if you must..).
• If there is any surplus green energy left, capture as much concentrated CO2 with algae at CO2-intensive exhausts like natural gas plants and test with artificial methods to see how they compare with plant-based capture.
• Artificial direct-from air capture with whatever unused energy we have left after all these steps <-------this is this article is right here at the end, once all the other mammoth problems have been solved

I don't know who upvoted my deleted comment, but yes, getting remindmebot names right at first try is hard 😶‍🌫️

@RemindMe@mstdn.social 10 days

@RemindMeBot@mstdn.social 10 days