You're on Mars. You need to keep it simple, and keep resource requirements down. So why six walls instead of four? Why complicated join angles? Does the fact that all but the most artsy furniture is _square_, and hence fits best in a square/rectangular space, lost on the designers/judges? Does the fact that Mars dwellers might come from Earth, and hence long for something familiar, not suggest that a square/rectangular design might be better for the mental health of the colony?

We are not bees. We are human. Mars dwellers will not be 'artists', but people struggling to survive in an alien and hostile environment. Hexagon houses don't make any sense here on Earth, where they are easy to build and maintain. Why in heaven's name would they make sense on Mars?

You know what would make sense? Frickin' trailer parks of 'portables' like we use in hostile environments here on Earth! Worried about radiation? Put them underground dumbass!

We simply do not know enough about the planet to 'engineer' it.
Every past effort to 'engineer' nature, even the simplest, has discovered things it failed to take in to account eg. introduction of 'control' species that became 'invasive'.
On top of which, we don't have to engineer our way out of this. The clear solutions arepresent albeit mundane: more trees, less waste.
'Engineering' the planet simply means finding a way to allow us (humans) to continue to make inefficient or wasteful use of our resources.

So this is where I personally opt out.
        I will deny climate change simply in an effort to keep people from screwing with the planet and to encourage others to protest experiments.
        My next house will have two airconditioners, four cars (all SUV's), two pools, and as much 'always on' electronic gadgetry as I can stuff in it.
        All my future purchases will be quadruple wrapped in plastic, all my food processed, and I'll no longer recycle.

If you're going to engineer the planet, I'm going to make it worth your while.

You're wrong on all counts. Neat!

FTR:

a) _all_ forms of energy production need storage, simply because demand varies and production cannot be dynamically varied in sync. Therefore, energy produced that exceeds demand should, in the interest of efficient use of resources, be stored. Renewables _in particular_ require storage; and

b) the power usage of power-hungry industries _cannot_ be varied easily. Those industries respond to consumer demand and resource availability, neither of which is controlled "easily".

... it's noise.

More accurate to say, 'the number of people with broadband subscribers now approximately equals ....'

Very sadly, I know that I will shortly hear someone in the workplace trumpetinng the /. title.

Also, be honest. Like, when you use /. to conduct a survey, don't use a bogus name; use your real name, Apple, when posting in public.

So they only know who you speak with.
One wonders what that information would be worth and to whom.
Was phone number collection a condition in exchange for guarantees of the company's success, or did the company, after the fact, realise it had an additional profit line as its customer base increased?

Will the side effects simply lead to death in another way?
Will the quality of the time bought, if any, be worth it?

In this neck of the woods every wind turbine has a back up generator.
Why?
Peak power demands are hot, windless, summer days.
So the back up power generator has to kick in. And the generators of choice? GAS TURBINES.

Solar you say?
Do you have any idea of how much square footage is required to meet peak demand? So it costs a fortune to hook the necessarily remote solar farms in to the grid (though in fairness, that has a lot to do with the price of copper).

Face it, 'fossil' fuels and nuclear are efficient ... when used efficiently.
Oh, and if you are really fussed about power consumption, then do something like say, get rid of your air conditioner ... hmm, thought not.

Can doctors get any idler?

Anyways, stupid idea. Sick people want to share with a real person. Hard enough to do with a flesh and blood arse giving you 12 minutes of his/her time, let alone a 'remote presence' (as if that even makes sense). The only circumstance where the scenario is a necessary evil, is true remoteness eg. medical advice for people in very remote locations like the Arctic.

Next profit idea: don't even use a real doctor, instead, an avatar with AI that is 'really good at listening and looking'.

... it becomes apparent what has been going on:

a) foreign industry allowed in to Chinese markets;
b) Chinese intelligence (government and industrial ... there's a difference?) goes to work stealing IP and passing it on to chosen Chinese industry;
c) foreign industry gets hit with exclusions (eg. MS and Apple banned for government use) and legal harassment (MS target of anti-trust investigation); and
d) Chinese industry rises to dominate the market (Xiaomi - Apple of China).

Nothing wrong with all that, a society/country looking out for itself. In fact, it might be considered admirable that they so closely protect their autonomy, refusing to let themselves be dominated by foreign corporate interests.

It isn't a dead zone.

Because algae is 'life'. So is all the stuff that feeds off the algae.

There's just nothing we can fish in to extinction.

... go north and south of that and guess what? Solar isn't viable in any meaningful sense.

And you know what? That's as it should be. So:

Dear Utilities,

Send your power to where people need it.

Thanks,
Person from a Dark Cold Country

Wow, herding animals have a social network. Really, that should not be surprise but kudos to the researchers for actually studying it. But biology is repeatedly surprised by this sort of thing to the point that one is inclined to think that is biology tells you it isn't so, then it is likely just so eg.- "No life could exist in such an environment." => Life could exist in such an environment.

Biologists = butterfly collectors

That's it folks. Enjoy the way the future unfolds for you. And remember, you asked for it.

This is a big WTF?
        The principles involved are well known and explored unto death to the point that they are high school science project fodder.
        The inspiration/precedent for this particular exercise came from ... a TV show known for its precise experimental process?
        More effective and practical methods of implementing the principles have been in existence for a while, see 'boundary layer control'.
        Did this become a story because its amazing science and engineering?
        Or because it is a slow week for MIT's marketing department?