somewhat_drunk

Rocket reliability has jumped over the last decade, and a trend that is likely to continue. But one could (and should) still encapsulate the material in an explosion-proof container.

Far more politically expedient to shoot it into the sun.

BEV lifecycle emissions are significantly lower than PHEV lifecycle emissions.

https://theicct.org/publication/ghg-benefits-incentives-ev-m...

>That said, we are already intervening in the climate with greenhouse gases. The safest intervention from here is to just stop/slow that. We know what the world is like with less GHG. We only get one shot at a habitable Earth, so while it is scary to try fixing it, it’s more scary to continue breaking it in my opinion. No one wants to act hastily though, we’re working on the science to make sure we know what we’re doing.

Agreed 100%. Gambling with the only planet we have is tremendously stupid, yet there are many (including in this very thread) who advocate doing just that. The mind boggles.

Thanks for your response. I'm a former mechanical engineer turned software engineer who's currently studying data science while between jobs. I want to do something good for humanity, and your field sounds like it could be a good fit, and interesting. Are there many remote positions in climate informatics?

Perfect analogy.

What's your take on the viability of geoengineering our way out of climate change?

The argument against is that we might fuck it up. It's a good argument.

Are your shoes tied?

I doubt we're going back to burning oil, at least not as we have been doing. But I also doubt we're going to transition away fast enough, and once we have the "fix," the transition away from it will slow.

We have exactly one place to live in the entire known universe, and we're such a shitshow that we can't help but to gamble on destroying it.

I've been saying for a long time that we'll eventually have to geoengineer our way out of climate change. Sadly, I still think that's the case.

I've been saying for a long time that we'll resort to geoengineering to finagle our way out of climate change. Unfortunately I think that prediction is still spot-on.

Hilarious!

As long as there isn't a secondary market on which to trade, then no, they aren't any worse. And right now, there isn't a good secondary market in the USA.

Interesting, thank you!

I think they're using that statement as an indication of the average consumer's behavior, not necessarily their own. In fact, their very next sentence makes it clear that they aren't just swallowing the official line wholesale.

Maybe you should go see a doctor about that knee-jerk problem.

>fluoride in drinking water

Is there a legitimate issue with fluoride in drinking water? A quick google search yields nothing.

>It's quite likely

...is it?

Just like fusion![1]

1. I kid, I kid

To be clear, I don't like them from the perspective of equity crowdfunding, which has an alarmingly high percentage of low-information, follow-the-crowd, "dumb money" retail investors.

SAFEs muddy the waters. It's just another thing that already overwhelmed retail investors need to take into account when considering whether to invest.

https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/safe-securities

Oh?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/23/fac...

You aren't taxed more on larger, more expensive vehicles because the powers that be (or the poster you were responding to) think you're a privileged asshole. You're taxed more because heavier vehicles cause more road wear, and because Washington has no income tax (which are typically progressive in nature), so the rest of their tax system needs to lean more progressive to make up for that. Thus, more expensive vehicles get taxed more.

Did you benefit from paying no state income taxes for decades? Well, now you're paying a little back into the system. I'd think you'd be happy to do that, after having paid no state income taxes for so long. I'd also think you were well aware of the registration taxes when you purchased the vehicle? If so, given these two facts, why are you complaining about it?

You can still be an asshole if you want of course, but being an asshole has nothing to do with your registration taxes.

SAFEs are common in equity crowdfunding. Raises on Republic are often SAFEs. I'm not a fan.

Exactly. That right wing grifters have piled onto the current UFO conspiracy push doesn't lend it any additional credibility. If anything, it detracts from it.

>In the end, it helped me see that all programming is basically a spreadsheet and analogous to the STDIN/STDOUT stream processing of Unix executables. All of the stuff we think of as programming, like objects and classes, is basically hand waving to make problems/solutions supposedly fit in the human mind.

Holy shit Zack, I thought you didn't pay attention at Bayside???

Mind-blowing thought for my mind at this place and this time. Something that I intuited at some point but never made concrete by putting it into words. Thanks for sharing!

>It is very unclear whether electric vehicles actually are more environmentally friendly.

No, it really isn't. Google it, and ignore right-wing sources, which are more often than not complete garbage these days.

Probably means cross-sectional area.

FCEV "well to wheel" systemic efficiency is significantly lower than equivalent BEV systemic efficiency, and FCEVs are much more complex than BEVs. FCEV's only advantages over BEVs are faster charging times and moderately greater range, both of which are fast dwindling and will soon be gone. Hydrogen is a dead end, a decarbonization distraction being pushed by oil companies, policymakers engaging in the sunk cost fallacy, and those who would benefit financially from a widespread adoption of the tech.

Shame on all who continue to push hydrogen tech for selfish reasons.

https://medium.com/10x-curiosity/the-hydrogen-hopium-ea11c7a...

https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/63-paul-marti...

>FCEVs are also EVs

This is a meaningless statement within the context of the FCEV vs BEV discussion. You keep saying it, so presumably you think it makes you sound clever? It doesn't. It has the opposite effect.

Indeed. It's not a feasible solution on that basis alone.

An obvious false equivalence. The difference is pressure.

I was a project engineer in a hydrogen fuel cell research lab for a few years.

To add to this, hydrogen also:

- is the smallest molecule; as such is very difficult to contain

- embrittles and degrades most steels

- is ignited by a miniscule amount of energy, such as static sparks

- has a terribly rapid flame front, which means big boom when it does ignite

Everyone has seen the consequences of pilot lights going out while owners are on vacation. House fills with natural gas, fridge compressor kicks on, ignites gas, house explodes. A house filled with hydrogen would not only destroy the house containing it, but the houses next to it as well, and it would be much more likely to ignite due to its much lower ignition energy.

I do not trust contractors to install hydrogen piping, and I do not trust homeowners to maintain their hydrogen sensors. I would NEVER live in a building that had hydrogen stored (as in a vehicle tank) or piped inside. There are simply too many ways for that scenario to go wrong, and if it does go wrong, it goes wrong in a very bad way.