Cropping, contrast / color adjustment, noise filtering, conversion to different file formants, rescaling, are all widely used and necessary to have high quality photos. I don't see how that type of (IMHO harmless) processing can be distinguished from AI manipulation by an embedded signature. It may be possible to for example verify that an image was generated by the New York times, which has some real value but only if the technology is widely used

People don't get to just claim anything they can see is "sacred" to them. Cultures worship the sun, the moon, the stars, the oceans, the Earth. That is all fine, but its absurd that worshipping something should give you control over that thing.

Sacred places like graveyards and churches are regularly moved or destroyed as necessary - has to be that way or the entire world would end up covered with untouchable sacred sites. I have no problem protecting places of special importance to a group, but the number of those places on land not owned by that group has to be limited.

Maybe this insane overreach, claiming rights 14 MILLION square miles of land, will cause people to rethink how to deal with this sort of claim in the future.

Laser isnâ(TM)t crazy, but clouds / atmosphere block wavelengths that are the easiest to convert efficiently. OTOH the microwave densities are pretty high even if they are less than solar - they may be above safety limits.

Iâ(TM)d love to see space solar but the economics seems difficult

Hybrids are good for some applications. If someone mostly drives a short commute but with occasional long trips a hybrid can be an efficient solution

Pulse jets were still using conventional combustion, not detonation. Detonation waves travel much faster than flame fronts - faster than ambient temperature sonic.

Detonation waves have higher temperature and potentially higher efficiency, but lots of engineering challenges

I said âoerace, gender, etc.â No implied indication which was more serious. I would not be surprised if women are tipped better than men are but I havenâ(TM)t seen any statistics

Jobs where tips are a major part of income may be discriminating based on race, gender, etc. Nothing insures that customers are obeying non-discrimination laws.

Iâ(TM)d like to see tipping banned on that basis AND previously tipped jobs pay increased to keep the same average total income. I expect and accept that prices will increase accordingly

Some people feel that their jobs, no matter how non-elite are their way of contributing to society and as a matter of pride and self-worth they continue to work as ling as they can.

Of course others continue to work out of economic necessity

In the long term AI will likely provide a great reduction in mankindâ(TM)s greenhouse gas production if we ask it to. It can also eliminate disease, poverty, inequality, war, and all unhappiness as well if that is what we tell it we want.

Forever

Itâ(TM)s not clear what level of technology we could maintain with a drastically reduced population, and the resulting loss of skills, along with vast infrastructure damage.

You might be right, but I donâ(TM)t think itâ(TM)s clear. If we had plans in place it would be much better, but politics might harm our ability to react decisively until it was too late (eg see Covid)
Even now we are not trying very hard with asteroid deflection because âoenukes are badâ.

Most species went extinct so probably a very high percentage of individuals died. The survivors could have been in very lucky locations Probably a little photosynthesis remained in a few places

The efficiency for producing and using hydrogen is considerably lower than for batteries, and the capital cost is higher. For most applications either direct electrical transmission (industry, rail, possibly long haul trucks), or Lithium batteries (most cars and other mobile devices) is cheaper and more efficient.

If the goal is fixing climate change we don't need to get rid of 100% of fossil fuels in the US, we need to get rid of MOST fossil fuels globally.

Long haul aircraft are one application that is both a largen enough CO2 use to be worth going after and where there is no practical battery alternative. It might make sense to use H2 fueled aircraft - either fuel cell or hydrogen burning turbines. The very low density of LH2 would require entirely new aircraft designs (extremely expensive) but its much lower weight than Jet-A per energy is a large advantage in overall energy use.

If H2 is used for aircraft, then on-airport production of LH2 from the electric grid seems the most practical approach. Sadly that isn't the approach in this proposal, which is just a green-washed proposal that only makes sense to people who think hydrogen is an energy source, not a transportation / storage medium

If not, people will refuse to use them to make purchases and they will lose much of their value.

Not just no but "really really no, that's a truly terribly idea".

Climate change is complicated and the only way to make it sound simple is by lying. Lying, not surprisingly , makes people not believe anything you say - I seem to remember a parable involving a boy and a wolf.

Its not just a case of doing the right things (though it is) but of maintaining your reputation. You never know when you may want to be working with some of those people again. A positive vs. negative recommendation from former coworkers is extremely valuable.