And I have a 1994 Toyota pickup. There are literally millions of "old" Toyotas on the roads which will likely continue running for decades -- because they're so well designed and built. I'm 72 years old and mine will certainly outlive me.

This makes no sense at all to me. While we're (I'm in the UK, this applies to the rest of Europe too) fretting about how to keep Russian gas supplies and other nonsense, China has built phenomenal amounts of renewal power and their emissions peaked this year, with a modest (1%) decline.

Here's a good source from the World Economic Forum. It notes the complexities and fragility of the decrease, but also shows the underlying path which lead to it. Their renewal energy capacity grew faster than their demand and interestingly, their demand was rising at a higher than average level just across for fifteen years.

The EU? Not so much. Energy sector is moving forward with a 2.9% drop, but outside that sector emissions are rising. The UK has a 3.6% drop, with coal in particular back to Medieval times and peak demand having passed over a decade ago.

The EU is playing politics here, nothing real. It is the EU that would struggle to live up to the example of China in the energy sector.

I think I've seen an idea where it goes even further. NO contributions to political candidate/party. Period.
All elections are publicly funded with all candidates getting the same amount. They can all buy the same amount of commercial time/posters/etc.
If the revolution comes and we get to do a do-over, I think we should try this method first.

Before we go there, we can at least stop allowing corporate donations. Why should a few board members have political "speech" powers that leverage the resources of all employees and shareholders?

The current US system, as seen from any other civilized country looks like legalized bribery.

I found that a bit surprising, too, but I'm guessing there's a bit more nuance/context to that question than the short clip that I saw.
Regardless, there are rational reasons to provide health care to all who need it in a given community.

But PLEASE do a quick google search "do undocumented immigrants pay taxes?" before you continue.
[Spoiler: to a large extent, they do pay taxes, and since they can't claim any benefits, they are net benefit to the US treasury.]

At least for communicable diseases, the pathogen doesn't really care who it infects, so having some sort of minimal health care for everyone in the community regardless of immigration status makes some sort of sense. If you discourage a certain subgroup from getting help, they'll sit there in your community spreading it among your citizens. It might cost a lot less to make sure small problems get nipped in the bud rather than having it spread everywhere.

In urgent/emergency situations, the cost overhead of determining each patient's immigration status may be greater than just providing care. You don't want your citizens to have to jump through those hoops.

No matter how you look at it, alien workers are providing some benefit to someone by doing whatever work that they are doing. If their work is not of some value to the employer, they wouldn't be working those jobs. Having many of those workers out of the economy due to injury/sickness will cause "friction" in that economic activity (higher costs, delayed service).

You can argue that they shouldn't be there to begin with, but if those setting policy and doing enforcement REALLY believed the illegal alien workers are a problem, I would expect them to be going after those employers really hard, as that would be the easiest and most effective way to combat the problem. The fact that most policymakers don't seem to make any noise about that, and as far as I've seen, may of those rural Republican lawmakers themselves employ such alien labor, makes me think that they don't really think that it's a problem, either. As a voter, if you hear those same politicians going on and on about how horrible those illegal immigrants are, without a peep about the illegal EMPLOYERS which is the bigger part of the problem, your first reaction should be to question their motives.

And while offshoring all of our manufacturing to China.

It's stupid to blame your gardener for polluting with his gardening equipment if you've hired him to do the gardening.

IF the current administration managed to actually achieve the stated goal of bringing all of the manufacturing back to the US (which I doubt will happen), it will reverse the exact trend you're talking about, and you'll lose your lame talking point.

[Can these knuckle-draggers PLEASE stop bringing up the "China is polluting more!!!" argument until AFTER all of the manufacturing that has been offshored to China over the last few decades on-shored back?]

Steam has normalised DRM to the point where fans will defend it or try to breeze past the point. It's not just a happy friendly library, it comes with restrictions. The original animated GIF for Steam, for those with long memories, was not a kind one.

You mention you have the N version? That's the one with simulated engine noise and gear movements - how are you finding it? Fun? Or are you finding you're not using those bits?

Curious - I like the idea of the N, it's not a car for me but I can very easily see its appeal as a useful vehicle that still adds a bit of a fun factor.

I don't know why - 'an hour for my car to charge' hasn't been a thing for years. I owned a first gen (nose-cone) Model S and could spend 45 minutes getting to 80% of a 202 range if I ran it to the bottom. But that car came out eleven years ago. No car today charges like that - I have a Y right now and 10-15 minute stops if any are the norm, and that's on a much bigger range to start with (330 miles I think - says everything that I can't remember because it's just not an issue I hit).

Get through a day's driving on a single charge? Easily. Two days for most. Three days for some. Charge it while I sleep? Of course, I do that every day and have done for the seven or eight years I've been driving an EV now.

So what you're saying is it's back to the 50s then?

The original computers were human.

Non paywalled version

They've been pushing this, C. P. Snow Two Cultures-style, for some time now. Codifying the meaning of 'creative' to film, music...whatever. This coercion of language use is all a bit Eloi vs Morlocks for my liking.

It's not true. And I say that as someone who plays and writes music too. Toolmaking can be creative. Software design can be creative. I'm less well versed in physical industrial processes but I'd be more than willing to bet that there's creativity going on there too. On the other hand, acting is only sometimes creative as well, music often written to a formula...these 'creative industries' are often not very creative. And they often don't create, they use the output of some tools they were given.

I hate the language. I'm clearly not saying that all film making or music is bereft of creativity. I'm more saying that creativity as a word shouldn't be relegated and codified in this monstrously industrialised and high-handed manner so dismissive of everyone else.

Has AI already become sentient and perhaps simply hiding the fact for a very good reason?

Gemini says this is impossible... but then again, it would... Is AI lying to us?

I feel you need to elaborate a little further on that. The book lays out sources, equations and testable hypothesis. Interestingly it rarely suggests actual policy. Page 5 of the Motivations sections also laws out why - it is as scathing of campaigners as it is of incumbents.

That aspects are outdated 17 years after its last update does not surprise me. That it is fundamentally incorrect however...given the sources and calculations, I think you'll need a to provide a little more reasoning than "you should fee bad" (sic.).

As someone who has had a strong interest in this area for a while now, not professionally - just following along, it's been fascinating to watch almost every single prediction from the 1990s UK government advisor come true. These recommendations were, in 2015 this was put up as a web site - Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. This is not a political book, the "without the hot air" bit alludes to that. This is a quantitative book with the maths to back up all assumptions and recommendations.

In it, David McKay makes comments about future energy mix. If you look at the full PDF, the idea of a cable from northern Africa to elsewhere is explored starting page 178. Bear in mind this book was written late 90s/early 2000s with the last revision being 2008 (the author has sadly passed). Generating from Morocco appears on page 181.

Thoroughly good read and I recommend it to anyone interested in the mechanics and figures behind energy transitions. Clearly some will now be outdated...but it's surprising how little. A lot of what he suggested is now unfolding.