If you compare the power usage and performance of a Commodore 64 to today's laptops, I think we've done a pretty good job of exponentially increasing power efficiency. Already, computers are waaay more powerful than human minds, we just haven't figured out how to steer all this power towards actual intelligence. If mother nature can create human minds that function on a few sandwiches a day, I'm sure we'll be able to surpass that. Of course it can't continue to grow exponentially forever, but it can certainly scale well beyond the combined power of the seven billion human brains on this planet today.

No if we can just prevent the release of CO2, we'll actually be reducing CO2 levels in a really easy way! Just bury all the plant material deep enough, or pump it into empty oil wells or something like that.

How about pumping it into oil fields to replace the oil we're pumping out? Carbon neutrality at last, and in a million years or so we've got oil again.

And more animals in them, producing more CO2.

I've always known that here were a lot more meteors on tuesdays. So now science has finally figured that out, too.

Exactly, if you just move to a different state that has different laws, and maybe even a different definition of pi, you'll find that it's perfectly legal to discern between light and matter.

Watch out for the sharks in the quantum whirlpool. They love friggin lasers, apparently.

For my software, I've had chargebacks from people just saying they didn't want the software anymore, without any further explanation (after they had already received their registration code and could use the software with no restrictions). I was told there was nothing I could do. Instead of a $15 sale, I had to pay a $15 chargeback fee. All I could do was disable that registration code in future updates. Fortunately it was a relatively rare occurrence.

Technically, you could make it with the same chicken's own period

Oh, that will happen, sure, Elon absolutely loves "fool cells"!

It's not so easy to just convert some old tanks to storing hydrogen. Hydrogen is highly corrosive and eats through many metals. Leaks are extremely dangerous as hydrogen needs very little to explode, contrary to petrol which isn't nearly as flammable.

Also, I don't understand your argument about not needing many refeuling stations with a 300 mile range. Most petrol or diesel cars have a better range than that, mine easily does more than 600, yet look how many gas stations there are. Electric vehicles need less recharging stations because most people can recharge at home. Recharging hydrogen at home would be a bad idea: the smallest, odorless leak can blow up whole houses. If you start equipping millions of homes with hydrogen filling stations, you'll have explosions pretty much every day. And anyway, making hydrogen with electricity is extremely inefficient, about a third as efficient as charging a lithium battery. Almost all commercial hydrogen comes from fossil fuel sources (mostly natural gas).

But you can inhale it and get a really funny voice!

The problem is that creating hydrogen by splitting water using electricity is highly inefficient, MUCH less efficient than storing electricity in a lithium battery, so the vast majority of hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. And that's precisely the dependence we were supposed to try and get rid of.

That would have made a much better headline!

I can only imagine the thought that went into the "diamond" headline. "Hmmm, our readers are never going to understand this, let's see if we can dumb it down. Hmmm... we'll definitely keep "nano". Carbon is not sexy enough, can we compare it to something else made of carbon?... Diamond! What about diamond nanothreads? Perfect!

Meanwhile the researchers can't believe what they're reading.

I was already wondering what had happened to all the hydrogens in C6H6. Now I know.

So now Higgs and Englert are in a superposition of having deserved the nobel prize and not having deserved it, right?