great_tankard

Yes. I've often wondered about how previous generations got certain things so wrong, but this is the first time I've been fully aware of a revolution taking place right under my nose and I feel mostly powerless to do anything about it.

Even if mining all of the lithium and copper weren't such a disastrously extractive and exploitative process, big personal steel boxes would still be an awful mode of transportation for most people. Our insistence on building infrastructure such that cars are the only truly viable method of getting around diminishes my enthusiasm about what is otherwise amazing technological progress.

Lol

The only reasonable thing you said was that people generally aren't acutely aware of their energy usage. That has more to do with our society's attitude towards how we build things and how we get around than anything else. To condemn people to have to devote all their waking hours to monitoring their meters is an absurd solution to that problem.

Lack of regulation and poor politics have killed people, once again. Griddy was a stupid solution to the wrong problem.

eh, I don't know. NYT sucks up a LOT of talent from across the country. What I'm saying is: this sort of thing is maybe excusable from small/independent journalism outlets trying to stay afloat, but you don't need to make excuses for NYT. They pay their own executives handsomely to do that.

Nice breakdown.

It's a small thing, but I'm really grateful that he very specifically aimed at the senior authors here. While I'm not sure that the first author can be completely absolved of responsibility (due to the simple fact that they are listed as an author), the power dynamics in academia are absurdly skewed and it's nice to see a tacit acknowledgement of that in an otherwise (justifiably) scathing critique.

Folding@home mostly tries to calculate protein dynamics using already solved structures, so their work is still critical.