No production code without unit tests. Every possible type or class of input must be tested. All assumptions must be tested. All outputs must be verified for each possible combination of inputs. All failure modes must be exercised. No excuses, just do it.

It depends upon what sort of fuel you're trying to produce. Methane can definitely be burned as a fuel, on your stove for example, but it's not a good aviation fuel. The idea here is to skip methane and go straight to ethane or propane which can be up-converted to even longer chain hydrocarbons via more heat and pressure, eventually yielding jet fuel. Artificial hydrocarbon fuels themselves are nothing new. The basic processes have been known since the early part of the 20th century, but because it's way cheaper to simply refine naturally occurring petroleum pumped out of the ground, nobody does synthetic hydrocarbons unless they have to. For example, Germany produced synthetic aviation gasoline from coal during WWII as supplies of oil were gradually cut off and South Africa produced diesel fuel from coal during the sanctions of the Apartheid era.

There's no doubt that manufacturing fuel on board is desirable from a logistics standpoint. The question is cost, not just monetary but energy. As you're no doubt aware, hydrocarbon fuels are incredibly energy dense which means that an equal amount (and probably more) energy most go into their creation from scratch using the most basic raw materials, H2, CO2 and CO. The question is how much space is available onboard for production scale versions of these reactors and how much steam and electric power will the reactor have to supply to make this work. I don't know, but I would guess lots. This fuel production sounds like an energy hungry process. How much power and steam can be spared from other onboard needs to power fuel production? Would this stress the reactors, possibly reducing service life or requiring more frequent nuclear refuels? There are trade-offs here, it's not a slam dunk.

California?

I was under the impression that electrolysis isn't a fast process but the article does mention some kind of patented "electrolytic cation exchange module", perhaps combined with some kind of "bicarbonate" reactant? In any case, it seems clear that they've found a way to substantially speed up H2 and CO2 production from seawater. From there it's not much of a stretch to produce CO and then hydrocarbon fuels, jet fuels in this case, via the well understood Fischer-Tropsch process or similar.

You do realize that what they're producing here is artificial jet fuel, right? It's not "biofuel" because it isn't produced by bacteria or algae or other direct biological process. No, what they're talking about here is essentially the water gas shift reaction whereby dissolved CO2 in the seawater is combined with water vapor (aka steam) and carbon monoxide (produced via this "bicarbonate" reactant?) to yield carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen which more heat and pressure (steam) in the presence of an iron catalyst converts these products into short chain hydrocarbons (alkenes), probably ethanes (CH3) and propanes (CH4), and from there longer chain hydrocarbons with more heat and pressure until the desired blend is cooked up, jet fuels of CH9 to CH16. However, these processes don't really transition us away from fossil fuels or at least not into something besides a hydrocarbon fuel, whether produced artificially as in this case or refined from naturally occurring crude oil that we've pumped out of the ground.

It's unlikely that this would obviate completely the need for external supplies of fuel. At best it would probably only marginally decrease the depletion rate of on board stocks allowing for a somewhat longer cruise before a resupply is needed. There are probably other downsides to using this system too. For example, there are parts, maintenance and possibly extra wear and tear on the reactor which now not only has to propel the ship but also power an energy intensive conversion process from seawater to jet fuel. Indeed, the initiation energy for some of those chemical reactions is quite high which probably explains why somebody isn't already doing this on a large scale for profit here on land.

They have a name for that. I believe it's called hyperinflation and it's definitely not a good thing.

I doubt that you will find one because Warren's whole investment philosophy revolves around the concept of "durable competitive advantage" which is a fancy way of saying that some companies are superior to others and able to maintain that superiority over long periods of time. Buffet made his fortune by finding these companies, buying them at the right price and then holding them as long as they continued to have that competitive advantage. In some cases he has held positions for decades or even longer as profits mounted into the thousands of percent gain and counting. This also has the advantage of deferring capital gains taxes far into the future since no taxes are owed until the asset is actually sold. That's the basic theory anyway. Whether or not you believe that is up to you I suppose, but it's hard to argue with Buffet's lifetime results.

Except that you're basically forced to participate in the US because they've rigged the tax laws so that it's very difficult to have tax deferred retirement savings in any significant amount without playing their 401K games, fees and all. If the US Government really wanted to make things fair, they would allow up to the maximum 401K contribution to be split among any number of like tax deferred plans, either personal IRA or plan offered by your employer. However, that will never happen because Wall Street always lobbies hard against anything that might allow individual savers to escape or minimize their fees.

How does that hurt the individual investor buying or selling with limit orders? With limit orders you can get the price you want or the trade doesn't happen. If your offer is reasonable it's unlikely that your trade will be forever in limbo due to repeated auto-cancels.

This. Exactly. The individual small investor has ZERO business putting in buy orders at market and selling stocks that way is only slightly less dumb. The stock market isn't rigged so that individual small investors have no winning strategies but plenty of investors, both big and small, punish themselves daily through stupid play. That's why I laugh every time I see some brokerage firm advertising their "online trading platform" to individual small investors working from home. It's like Casino marketing. They want you to think that with their tools or "system" you will be a "winner" at the trading game against the high frequency professionals. In fact, the only winning move for the individual small investor is to refuse play and limit orders allow you to do that simply and easily. They do require patience, but then again most winning strategies for individual small investors do.

I have a 357 magnum revolver that could probably penetrate the door, but I don't shoot at things I cannot see. It's dangerous and silly to try and shoot intruders you cannot see through walls or doors. This isn't the movies after all.

Plenty of time for me to take up a good defensive firing position and make ready to lay into them as soon as they enter. I have the advantage of knowing the layout of my own home and the best firing positions so it's very likely that I would be able to fire several rounds before the intruders even knew which direction the shots were coming from. They would likely be dead or incapacitated before they could return fire.

The door and maybe the windows too have already been damaged or destroyed by the attackers. As I've said, I would take up a good firing position with cover and surprise them after they entered.

Nothing says "get the F*** out of here" like the sound of a shell being chambered into a shotgun. It's universally understood and almost universally respected. If that fails to get the message across then the site and sound of a discharge from said shotgun is almost always enough. The first round in mine is always a blank, that way I can deliver a warning shot before laying down the lead. I can always call 911 after the invaders are dead. Forcible entry of uninvited guests, aka breaking down the door, is the textbook example of justified use deadly force in protection of hearth, family and home. I don't think that there's a jury anywhere in America that would begrudge a man that right when his home is being invaded with violence.

Genetically modified tobacco? They ought to require a warning label on all products made with this tobacco so that people know that using it is harmful to their health.