Ok ok, I'll grant a few true facts on religious websites - such as we had a potluck last Wednesday. But the vast majority of claims are false. My god man they all conflict - Christians, Jews, Muslims - the overlap in concensus is tiny and the facts backing up what is agreed on are basically nonexistent. It takes a seriously intellectually dishonest mind to believe that one must be right at the expense of all the rest. Even more so when you ignore the mountains of facts that show religious revelation false.

Rational people may think so but the stock price is based on the people who use google services. Stupid people make up a majority of most business models. Id expect a large backlash.

I mean imagine if they *really* did push down pages with incorrect facts!!!?! ALL religious websites - all homeopathy websites - Fox News all down at the bottom. Not to mention how they would handle irony - it would actually be sad to see sites like The Onion punished. It's a nice idea but would require human level strong AI to automate and it still wouldn't be obvious where to draw the line.

No superconductor can carry unlimited current. Every one known or predicted has a threshold that, if exceeded, causes a breakdown of superconducting. Under many circumstances of high currents the resulting heat buildup destroys the superconductor.

Lmafo yes the same happened to me +1000

I mean after the last bit of dirt, bot, scum, and abuse is removed - well heck they might as well remove the brain cripplingly stupid comments too and finish shutting down the whole operation.

'Takes it in another direction' should have been the title.

The wheel is one of the most patented devices ever. People reinvent the wheel every day, from new reinforcement designs, to air pressure sensor systems, to folding systems for robots, to electric powered rims for ebikes. As a patent holder for two different wheel based inventions your careless use of a metaphor deeply offends me. Please think of all the hard won innovation and freedom the wheel has given you before you disrespect it so much. Brought to you by the let's roll with a better metaphor department.

Reminds me of George Carlins' near miss routine.

For a problem that is going to impact everything from rising ocean levels to farming - people should want to know exactly what is going to happen - if humans are responsible or not.

If oceans rise just 5 feet it's going to take tens to hundeds of trillions dollars to do things like move entire cities or create flood barriers. Increases In salinity and changes in rainfall can lead to completely redoing the water supply for entire regions which in turn can completely alter the manner of agriculture in each region. Increased storm activity can take a toll also.

It may look like the US spent 22B in climate research but actual research dollars were only 2.5B of that amount. The global women's shoe market is 80B whereas the global soccer (football) market is much larger. I have done some research and found we spend more yearly on the two than all of climate research ever done since the beginning of science. For a problem with such a high likelihood of being plausible its pretty damn insane more hasn't been done to understand and map the problem. I would not be suprised if the cost of dealing with a changing climate exceeded one quadrillion usd dollars within only 150 years.

We need more satellites that map various temperatures (including ocean), land use, cloud cover, and co2 distributions. We need more studies and data on glaciers - autonomous sensors everywhere. Same goes for ocean currents - also temperatures from deeper that you may not get from satellite. We need better climate models that let us accurately predict the changes that are likely - region by region - something current models struggle with. We cant feed those better models with better data, or more accurately check predictions because we lack the means of acquiring better data. Ultimately, in 100years or so, there may be serious wars fought over the redistribution of wealth that a changing climate will force on us all.

The Inquisition (Look out sin)!

Yes it is true if you assume things like the material is gas, it has random slow motion initially, etc. Then yes you can derive an upper limit based on the balance of radiation pressure and gravity. For special cases unlikely to happen in reality, such as artificial configurations of matter or thought experiment cases, this upper limit is much higher. For example if you fed a black hole neutrinos how would they significantly heat and spread compared to gas? They would not and you could feed a black hole many orders of magnitude more mass if you had a sufficent source of neutrinos. The same goes for electromagnetic radiation of most any kind. Or carefully slow a spinning black hole and feed it large amounts of solid matter such that it tends to not form any accretion disk. Again you can feed it orders of magnitude more matter than the theoretical limit.

At least war is something that humans with few weapons/resources afforded to them are much more effective at than self replicating robot armies decked out with the latest military hardware.

If (local/state/nation) governments were focusing, all vehicles that had a low co2/distance rating per region would get subsidy. This would make diesels the best bet because they are by far the cheapest co2 reduction per dollar spent. People/governments have a limited amount of money, we should do the most good with it.

go ahead flamod me as I crashed in flames on the last ev article, but yes if you live in a few select areas (80% of the world dosent) or have a custom solar installation then yes electric is the best for the enviorment. Power plants take decades to plan and build it's likely your area has no plans on upgrading (mine dosent). Hybrids are great co2/dist but still cost too much - around half of people can't spend 30k a car. However give the same 7-10k subsidy to a clean diesel - a 5k usd diesel would get everyone lining up to buy.

Do your calculations include the cost of a replacement battery?