Bad idea, over longer distances, flying is cleaner than driving. In some cases flying is cleaner than taking the train (e.g. high speed trains powered by coal-fired plants). Take-off and landing burns a crapload of fuel, but airplanes are surprisingly economical when cruising.

Too dark? Too soon? Or too personal?

Again I disagree. Not that the moderation system isn't broken--I suspect we agree about that--but rather that I fantasize that a "constructive" moderation system could "encourage" more positive social interactions. In particular I'd mostly like to see more humor, but I don't do funny--and I also didn't get such a mod. But such anti-social behavior problems are certainly not merely local or confined to Slashdot.

Society must acknowledge that sharing of info should be encouraged, and be thankful that technology has made sharing incredibly easy. Need to work harder on systems that can fairly compensate producers while encouraging sharing, not continue to base compensation on the restriction of sharing. Especially not to the point of outlawing sharing and wasting resources enforcing that and causing still more waste of lives that have to spend ruinously to fight to defend themselves from the legal mess.

One thing that makes this issue most intractable is that the organs who report on it are thoroughly convinced that sharing is contrary to their own interests. How is the public to hear unbiased reporting on this matter when no one with a metaphorical megaphone will give one?

Based on that logic, I'd love to see ChatGPT try to explain to Uncle Sam why they're not responsible if an assassin got instructions for how to successfully kill the president on ChatGPT.

Good joke, but you left out the balloon. The $207-billion balloon?

Just using the number from the story. The actual AI balloon is MUCH bigger than that.

Mostly the ACK, but I largely see it as a motivational problem. The people who want money are strongly motivated and the people who just want to get along or even just want to help other people are relatively weakly motivated. It sort of worked when their ambitions for more money were sane, but at this point they have fallen off the edge of insanity.

Leading to my (crazy) conclusion of the incommensurables:

infinity << money << time << infinity

Thanks for the clarification.

(More typos, however. Tends to make it harder to read your intentions and might even encourage some people to discount your comments.)

My main delusion remains solutions. For example, what if negative moderation reduced the moderator's likelihood of getting more mod points to squander in driving the mood into the mud? More difficult to implement, but comments with constructive suggestions or encouragement should make it more likely that identity will receive mod points to bestow. I think it would be nice to lighten the mood around here. (Then again, perhaps dark moods are the only reasonable reactions to the age of Donaldian Decadence?)

Right, I didn't. Apparently ditto the moderators.

And you didn't motivate any curiosity, then or now.

Yes - exactly this. Stop subsidising gas, but to do this they'll need a transition to move all the gas central heating in the UK over to heat pumps instead. Grants for doing so exist, but also increasing pressure on the gas price side would push people in the right direction as well.

You're thinking DRAX which yes, as it stands is definitely not a net-positive. But DRAX is normally excluded as they usually report on 'wind and solar'. If someone in government wants to look good with a pie chart with bigger numbers then yes - DRAX gets put in. But for the energy industry itself, it's reported differently.

It's the reverse. Green electricity is held back from adoption because the price is linked to the price of gas. While ever that link exists, electricity will be unnaturally expensive in comparison to its raw market price.

It's not completely irrational, although arguable (I would be on this point of view for instance) it's now out of date. The idea is to pick the most expensive bid price for the spot market price, not the cheapest, in order to incentivise continued operation of difficult energy sources. Why would you want to? Because in ye olden days 'difficult' were things like the hydro power or nuclear which were great for maintaining base line load and which you wanted to subsidise to keep going.

In today's market, that's completely on its head and renewables are the cheapest. Established nuclear second, granted construction costs of new nuclear make that overall cost higher of course. This is why the government is incentivising pushes towards heat pumps etc. - the more we get off gas, the less reason to maintain this market oddity exists and it can be removed making electricity cheaper again.

This is easier said than done. Much of the UK's housing stock would need improvement before heat pumps are viable. I recently had a survey on my own house for instance, and it came back as non-viable without a lot of improvements around heat loss first. These improvements would be a good thing and are semi-subsidised, but it's still effort. I believe the new build rules have finally, years late but finally, been changed to require standards around heat pumps and solar.

So yep - electricity being expensive in the UK is not due to the renewables or nuclear, it's due to gas. And the reason we still rely on gas so much is inertia plus building standards and upgrades. Hard one to unpick, but got to start somewhere.

AI = "Amalgamation of Information"

AI just uses probability calculations to amalgamate together an "average" of information on the subject. It's not smart. It doesn't think. It's not self-aware. It just is a digital hamburger grinder that churns out a paste of what gets put into its hopper.

More like an anti-solution to me. I almost never use File Explorer. On those rare occasions, it does not bother me to wait for a few seconds while it loads.

Me thinks that the real reason for making it resident is the greater convenience of Microsoft. Probably for some secretive tool that is harvesting my PI for Microsoft's greater glory and profit. Not visibly, of course, but using File Explorer in the background. (Any other comments along such lines?)