Ringz

Can you please explain what your „real life situations“ are?

Maybe you should check your sources:

*1. Limited Degradation Conditions* - Most biodegradable plastics only break down under specific conditions, such as high temperatures found in industrial composting facilities, which are not widely available[3][4][6]. - In landfills or the natural environment, they may persist for years and even release methane, a potent greenhouse gas[4].

*2. Contamination of Recycling Streams* - Biodegradable plastics can contaminate conventional plastic recycling, reducing the quality and durability of recycled products[1][7]. - They require separate collection and processing, adding complexity and cost to waste management[5][7].

*3. Microplastics and Environmental Harm* - Some types, especially oxo-degradable plastics, fragment into microplastics, which pollute ecosystems and can enter the food chain[1].

*4. Toxicity and Chemical Concerns* - Biodegradable and bioplastics often contain thousands of chemicals, some of which are toxic and comparable to those in traditional plastics[2][8]. - Cellulose and starch-based bioplastics have shown strong toxicity in laboratory studies[2].

*5. High Production Costs and Resource Use* - Production is generally more expensive than conventional plastics and may require significant agricultural resources, potentially competing with food production and increasing carbon emissions[3][2][7].

*6. Durability and Usability Issues* - Biodegradable plastics may not be as durable, limiting their application in some products[5]. - Some products have faced consumer complaints about performance, such as packaging noise or fragility[3].

*7. Greenwashing and Misleading Claims* - Marketing often exaggerates environmental benefits, leading to consumer confusion and a false sense of sustainability[1][6].

*8. Infrastructure and Collection Challenges* - Lack of proper infrastructure means many biodegradable plastics end up in landfills or are incinerated rather than composted[4][7].

In summary, biodegradable plastics face significant challenges regarding waste management, environmental impact, toxicity, and practicality, making them far from a perfect solution to plastic pollution[1][2][3].

Quellen [1] Biodegradable Plastic Problems | BioPak Australia https://www.biopak.com/au/resources/biodegradable-plastic-pr... [2] The False Promise Of Bioplastics and Compostable Plastics https://www.beyondplastics.org/fact-sheets/bad-news-about-bi... [3] Is Biodegradable Plastic Good for the Environment? Exploring its ... https://www.global.dnp/biz/column/detail/20173971_4117.html [4] Why Bioplastics Will Not Solve the World's Plastics Problem https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-bioplastics-will-not-solv... [5] Concept to Compost: Challenges of Biodegradable Plastics R&D https://grantica.io/challenges-of-biodegradable-plastics-res... [6] The Problem with Bioplastics - The Great Bubble Barrier® https://thegreatbubblebarrier.com/the-problem-with-bioplasti... [7] The problem with bio-plastic - Plastic Free Communities https://plasticfree.org.uk/2024/01/31/the-problem-with-bio-p... [8] Biodegradable plastics may bring degradation and toxicity ... https://foodpackagingforum.org/news/biodegradable-plastics-m...

Is it really biodegradable? Almost all varieties are not. They only fall apart in smaller plastic or need special heated environments. None of them will degrade if you simply throw them „into the woods“.

You aren’t the only one. I wonder how distillation of LLMs is done, didn’t research it and hoped this might be a solution. Well, it might be a solution but one that come with more hallucinations.

I do this since a long time. I don’t use my real email postbox address. I just use email addresses from my own domain server „catch all“ to the real email postbox.

If I ever change my email provider I just have to change the catch all rule.

Are you Stephen Wolfram?

https://quantifiedself.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/585958...

What about three simple rules to define comments:

1. If # is in the first column of the line.

2. If # is followed by a space.

3. The # only starts a comment when it’s outside of quotes.

I need your services in Cape Town South Africa. It’s hard to find good data centers here.

Why not.

Exactly my thought. The same answer goes for new plugins developed only for Chrome.

> The idea here is that the website still has a sound URL structure, which is managed by the core browser functionality, while interactivity is carefully layered on top, with targeted updates.

It’s a long time since I have to work with websites. JQuery was the hot stuff back then. But we didn’t used it. It was all HTML and a Java backend. This sentence implies that right now basic stuff isn’t managed by the browser (but by React, Vue and so on?) which seems to be simply wrong.

Agreed! TLDR:

Use plain HTML wherever possible for long term functional web pages!

I have wrongly assumed that a global health threat is equivalent to a pandemic.

Wouldn't these restrictions prevent a global pandemic and thus refute the headline?

If I were in real estate, I’d be grateful for this idea right now.

Only if we have more than enough renewable energy to spend making hydrogen. Hydrogen storage has a round-trip efficiency of 40%-50%, leading to significant energy losses. Partly by: Electrolysis requires 50-55 kWh to produce 1 kg of hydrogen, which only contains about 40 kWh, resulting in a 20%-30% energy loss upfront. It’s low energy density requires high-pressure or cryogenic storage, increasing costs and energy use, while leakage further reduces efficiency. Limited pipelines and refueling stations make hydrogen adoption costly and complex. Highly flammable hydrogen demands a lot of safety measures adding even more cost and complexity.

iCal them „simple“ and „complex“ power. For someone who isn’t truly informed, a „Simple Energy“ solution seems much simpler than one based on renewable energy. With „simple“ power, solving climate change appears straightforward: just build more nuclear plants, which conveniently replace coal and gas on a 1:1 basis since they are baseload power generators.

Renewable energy, on the other hand, is (for now, the transition time) complex. It requires a better, smarter, and much larger interconnected grid, as well as intelligent management of supply, demand, and storage. It means considering and understanding multiple aspects at once. This complexity often leads people who are convinced that more simple power is the answer to dismiss the idea of renewables too quickly—because nuclear seems so much simpler.

I understand the appeal of simple energy. The sad part is that many people likely believe this is the scientifically correct position. And they are often so convinced that, even when presented with current studies and reasonable arguments against new nuclear plants, they quickly assume that the other person is just an irrational, biased anti-nuclear activist. After all, the simplest solution must also be the right one, right?

Being informed in this context doesn’t just mean knowing the pros and cons of nuclear, wind, or solar power. It requires a deep understanding of what is technically and financially feasible today—including energy forms, grid transformation, storage solutions (not just lithium-ion batteries), follow-up costs, sustainability (mining, waste disposal), as well as political, economic, military, and social implications. And how all of these factors interact.

But none of that is necessary if you just want to build more simple power plants.

The transition to 100% renewable energy is as complex as the development of the internet. If we were still relying on letters, telephones, fax machines, newspapers, radio, and TV, the idea of transitioning to a globally available, instant multimedia internet would have seemed just as utopian and impossible.

I am on you side (but not all are more complicated and there are mechanical variations that are better than batteries for some scenarios) but the takeaway of that study is described here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43425560

Don’t get me wrong—I’d be all for batteries ruling the world if they were both affordable and technically advanced enough to meet various demands. That means they shouldn’t degrade too quickly, for example, when capturing and releasing wind energy in milliseconds. Or they shouldn’t lose too much energy over time due to self-discharge. Or they should be able to supply large amounts of energy instantly. Overbuilding is also a valid approach, especially in connection with a smart grid spanning multiple countries. All of that is fine.

However, the point of the study is different, and that makes it still relevant today: The barrier to expanding energy storage isn’t a technical one—it’s a political one. The study also shows that there is a great deal of variability, and the often-used argument that there’s not enough lithium or rare earth elements doesn’t hold up. More recent studies validate different storage technologies depending on their specific use case, showing that they can complement batteries in a meaningful way—also from a financial perspective.

Another perspective is that we still have a long way to go before full electrification. Right now, batteries are used in suitable scenarios, but many other areas haven’t been electrified or optimized at all. Other storage technologies might still become relevant. Building a house around a 20,000-liter tank to store energy for heating in Alaska over six months might already be financially and technically viable. But whether the logistical challenges of such solutions will ever make them truly feasible—that’s something I neither want nor can predict.

The great (!) article misses the holy grail of the Energiewende in the chapter „Addressing the challenges of solar intermittency“: a intercontinental smart grid. As shown by data of ENTSO-E in Europe a power system plays a crucial part to overcome intermittency problems of renewables.

There are studies (at the bottom of my post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43424310) showing that storage is mostly a political issue.

You are right.

But one misconception I often read is that everyone focuses on batteries. It would make more sense in general to talk about energy storage instead of just batteries. Like Kinetic, chemical, thermal and so on.

Batteries cannot be solely responsible for back-up. You need different types of storage: short term, medium term and long term storage.

There are different concepts for each application. Batteries, compressed air storage, pumped storage, kinetic, thermal storage as well as power-to-X systems are able to absorb the increasing summer power and provide the energy again in the medium term or seasonally shifted.

https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000445597

The IPCC & IEA grossly underestimates PV (and Wind) by any metric for years. Many scenarios assumed costs for 2050 that are already outdated today.

In the same time they overestimate Nuclear Energy and carbon capture by any metric (debatable). It’s getting so bad that there are numerous studies about that problem.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-solar-keeps-being...

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/03/31/solar-still-largely-u...

https://www.theenergymix.com/leading-climate-models-underest...

https://climatenexus.org/climate-change-news/iea-historicall...

Blot is SaaS, can’t be selfhosted and not Foss.

Or did I miss something?

I was looking to host my Markdown files (an Obsidian vault) as easy as possible without the need to run Jekyll, Hugo and so on.

Besides https://otterwiki.com/, Renato seems to be a suitable option.

Since we all blindly install anything from GitHub, which has more than 10[0][0][0] stars: wouldn't have to run anything like this automatically over every code before you "run it"?

Or, very controversially thought, wouldn't GitHub have to offer such a thing?

I have no problem with hundreds of tabs on Firefox.

A long, long time ago, during my studies, I maintained and set up Novell networks, Windows NT, and a proprietary Linux (?) server with specialized law firm software designed for legal partnerships. What I learned from that experience: Lawyers, notaries, and debt collectors rely heavily on text templates.

In a sense, you could say they’ve been conditioned for decades to adopt predefined text. And since this approach has worked so often, perhaps they’ve lost the habit of double-checking everything that a piece of software suggests to them.

Honest question: Why do I need Hugo, Jekyll, etc. for something like this? A simple HTML should be more than enough, or did I miss something?

> Determinism and free will are pretty irrelevant here.

No. It’s the other way around. Free will is the basic for „creating something new“.

> Btw, I don't think determinism in humans/AI has anything to do with deliberation.

With determinism there is no deliberation.