According to the measurement by clocks outside the spacecraft, that is, clocks that are not moving at speeds approaching the speed of light. That's what the phrase "outside the spacecraft" means.

Although we love to give him credit because he is the very picturesque vision of a mad scientist, you should know that many other people worked on AC power, and Tesla was not even the first other them. Of the AC pioneers, probably the most foundational work was done by Charles Steinmetz (who was also an immigrant, but who was in other ways the very opposite of Tesla).

The correct part of your statement is that it certainly won't happen if we don't do the work.

But you seem to be saying don't bother to do the work, because it's hopeless.

That was precisely your argument. When you said "Emissions keep growing while people keep searching for it", this is completely tantamount to saying "technology can never be made cheaper because it isn't cheaper now."

Magic was your word, not mine. And technology doesn't "magically" appear. It requires a lot of work. By engineers and scientists. But the work won't get done when techno-pessimists like you sit on your collective ass and say "it will never happen."

The argument is that revealing a person's health information to another person is a violation of personal medical privacy, but this isn't revealing it to a person.

There are multiple cans of worms opened here (some of them being discussed by the other commenters), but it seems a reasonable argument that it's not a HIPAA violation (...except in that we've sometimes seen that a carefully worded query can cause some LLMs to output their training data )

They have not merely "dreamed" of future solutions. They have done the hard work of instantiating future solutions. e.g.:
Solar: https://blogs-images.forbes.co...
Wind: https://www.vertogen.eu/wp-con...
Battery storage: https://www.huntkeyenergystora...

But you are confidently saying "well, maybe they have improved the technology in the past, but they can't possibly improve it in the future.

Because technology is not, in fact, magic.

Your argument "better technology can never be made cheaper, because it isn't cheaper today" has been disproved by experience,

Not at all clear. Reducing fossil fuels without destroying our economy will require implementation of better technologies. Turns out, improving technologies is something engineers are good at.

Maybe talk about it on news site, say, that has the motto "news for nerds"?

You're not paying much attention, then.

They're asked to censor usernames with the name "Molly" in them?

People named Molly ought to be a bit concerned here.

So, if 35% of developers say half their code is AI generated, multiplying that out accounts for 17.5% AI generated. Another 17.5% is not AI generated.

What about the remaining 65%?

Are you familiar with what happened in Alabama? In 2011 Alabama instituted a voter ID law restricting the forms of ID required to vote to a very small list, primarily relying on the Department of Motor Vehicles, which issues drivers licenses. The politicians argued that this was not an barrier to voting, because even if poor people don't own or drive cars, they could still get a government-issued ID at any Department of Motor Vehicles office. The very next year, Alabama closed all of the DMV offices in eight out of the ten Alabama counties that had majority black population. This was, the governor explained, simply a budget issue, and it was just happenstance that the closed offices were in counties with a black majority.

This is the reason that people are suspicious that stringent voter ID laws are more about suppressing voters than stopping voter misrepresentation (that has not been shown to even exist). Maybe it was just a coincidence, but it certainly was timed to look make Alabama look bad.

If stringent voter ID laws were always paired with laws making it easier for poor people to obtain an acceptable form of ID, that would go a long way toward making people think that the intent isn't to suppress votes. But somehow they never are.

Some references, in case you think I'm making this up:
  https://www.snopes.com/news/20...
  https://www.governing.com/arch...
  http://www.allgov.com/news/top...
  https://www.commondreams.org/n...
  https://atlanta.adl.org/news/a...

Like Alabama? ROFL.

Good to know. Unfortunately the complexity of tasks that the AI is being given to address, and the number of organiations trying to use AI to replace humans, are both increasing fast. So the question is, is the AI energy need shrinking fast enough?

This is Google realizing that since their whole business model has shifted to massive amounts of AI, and AI consumes energy by the freighter-load, they can choose their business model, or they can choose net zero carbon, but not both.

Probably all the jobs lost because "we now let AI do that!" are cancelled out by the jobs gained "we need to hire somebody to check the AIs work and fix all the problems it has!"