I would much rather we just cut fossil fuels and replace them with carbon-neutral or carbon-negative technologies, but given the political reality, there's no way that's going to happen soon enough, even if we outlawed the use of geoengineering. So given that reality, is this an existential threat to humanity or not? Because if it is, then it's better to roll the dice on geoengineering than watch the end of the world, right? I believe the climate scientists when they tell me climate change is an existential threat, but it's also the climate scientists who say, "no, it's not that bad yet" when you bring up geoengineering. So which is it? And given that we're definitely not going to cut emissions in time, wouldn't it be better to buy ourselves some time before we hit those tipping points we keep hearing about?

I mostly agree with you, but I think it might be unfair to the average American voter. Imagine that you live in West Virginia or Missouri, and you're struggling to get by, as many people are. Your wages haven't kept pace with inflation. You can't afford a house, and the price of houses seems to be rising faster than wages. Big companies have left your town to setup shop overseas, and your neighbors are out of work. Your health insurance sucks and is anything but universal. One big illness could wipe you out. When your wife had a kid, she got 6 weeks(!) of maternity leave, and had to be back at work.

Then you look at the US armed forces... there are 13(?) aircraft carriers that outmatch everything else on the ocean. Stealth bombers that look like spaceships. NASA launching huge rockets at enormous expense to go land people on the moon, when they already did that 45 years ago. A huge nuclear arsenal. This is all to be the world's police, and to provide a security umbrella to Europe.

And then you look at Europe, with their two years of maternity leave, and worker protections, and way more paid holidays, and universal healthcare, and they all like to look down their noses at Americans, while they benefit from a massive security umbrella that the US provides, which frees up the funds to spend on social programs.

Everyone thinks the MAGA crowd are traditional conservatives. Sure, there are some, but the core group of voters used to be democrats. They were union workers, laborers. They saw their savior in Bernie Sanders, and when the dems wouldn't let him run, they decided to follow the other populist voice. Is Trump lying to them? Absolutely.

I don't relate to MAGA at all. But I get it. The security arrangement might have been good for the US in general, but it hasn't been good for the average American worker. That's why we're here.

And there are going to be austerity measures coming to all of Europe. Those social programs are going to shrink. Right at a time when everyone's arming themselves to the teeth. How do you think that's going to play out?

I appreciate the average American's sentiment who want Europe to pay for its own defense. However, there's a lot of American history in the 20th century and before which brought us to this point deliberately. After being drawn into two huge world wars, started by member states of a continent that had continually been at war with themselves, the United States came up with a plan to prevent it from happening again. They invited everyone into an alliance structure where anyone could trade with anyone else, and the US would guarantee free navigation of the oceans so they didn't need big navies, and would provide security guarantees so that the countries of Europe didn't feel the need to arm themselves to the teeth. This arrangement is expensive for the US, but not so expensive as a world war 3. And it worked to prevent WW3 for many decades. Now that the generations who fought those wars are gone, we've forgotten the lessons, and I'm afraid we're doomed to repeat them. European have not evolved. Their geographic and political reality encourages wars among their own states. And as much as the US wants to stay out of it, they invariably get dragged back in every time.

If you apply "old school" industrial automation to a partly manual process, then getting 40% more worker productivity is hardly surprising. China, despite its rapid growth, is still in the final stages of industrializing. There's still lots of efficiency to be had. The US has been putting robots in factories since the 70's, so most of the low hanging fruit is already automated.

Also, beware what people are calling AI. In the industrial automation space, every vendor has been calling their product "AI" for the last 5 or 10 years. When you press them on it, it's often no more advanced than a PID controller or a few if/then statements. Our plant is more willing to take on new ideas than most, but the only real AI that I've seen installed on a plant floor over the last decade were some advanced vision-enabled picking systems. I'm sure someone has hooked an LLM to a plant-floor system somewhere, but I've not seen it yet. Nor have I seen a humanoid robot or a robot dog pay for itself. Even cobots only have mediocre uptake (but we are using them).

And finally, take stories out of China with a grain of salt. Yes, there's massive industrialization going on there, and the engineers working there are smart and motivated, but the government interferes heavily in the market. For instance, I've heard first-hand accounts from people on business trips there, where a truck was offloading several brand new CNC milling machines at a manufacturer, and the story was that these were just machines that the government had purchased and provided the company with the idea, "here, put these to good use." There's constant top-down subsidies being handed out, and it results in huge over-production problems. There are parking lots full of brand new EVs that dealers have written off because they can't sell them all. There are fields of solar panels producing power that can't get to market because there isn't enough local demand, and the power lines to the major centers aren't big enough to support the whole load.

Please check your reading comprehension. I specifically said I was "in favour of paying the fee when you renewed your license plate for the year, where you have to submit your vehicle mileage anyway." As in, your odometer reading. No need for a GPS at all.

Thanks for replying to my post without even reading it. I appreciate it.

Not surprising at all. This was a concern that was raised over a decade ago, even in discussions here on /.

The fact is that road maintenance needs to be paid, and it was long thought that charging taxes on gasoline was a good way to fund roads because it was simple to implement, it scales with how far you drive, and it also scales with the size of your vehicle (larger vehicles do more damage to the roads). So it was relatively fair. It also didn't require invasive data collection, such as how far or where you drove your vehicle.

When it was first discussed here on /., the consensus opinion was that if you drove an EV, you should have a GPS tracker installed in your car that measured how far you drove. We used to have big discussions here about privacy, and the privacy advocates thought that a government mandated GPS tracking you everywhere you went would be an overreach by government. I was generally in favour of paying the fee when you renewed your license plate for the year, where you have to submit your vehicle mileage anyway.

Of course now we voluntarily GPS track ourselves and send the data to our corporate overlords, so that all seems like a moot point.

Will this new law also apply to those crazy guys that power their diesel cars off used french fry grease they get from restaurants?

True, when I asked it to generate a spam email campaign, or a deepfake video of a local politician, it did great. I'm glad our society now has access to this wondrous new technology. I can't wait to see what amazing impact it will have on our lives. Too bad it can't, you know, go find me some facts and all, or at least tell me when it can't find any. Actually AI doesn't even go looking for facts. It generates text that looks statistically like text it has seen. So in no way does it do anything related to research or even summarizing. If you're using it to summarize something, you're using it wrong. It won't be an accurate summary.

I just asked it a fairly simple (in my opinion) question: "What are the top 3 tier one parts suppliers in the North American automotive market, by revenue?"

It very confidently gave me 3 tier 1 suppliers for the 2022 fiscal year. The top, not surprisingly, was Magna, which is probably true. But it said the revenue was ~$18.9 billion. That doesn't seem to line up with any facts I can find online about Magna. Typical revenue is more like $10 billion per quarter, or $40 billion per year. I can't figure out where it got the figure, and the links to the sources didn't turn up anything to support its statement.

Of the 4 cited sources, one was Wikipedia, and two were links to Continive.ai which, in my opinion, is a low quality source. The fourth source was here which rates tier 1 suppliers *globally* and by market cap instead of by revenue.

If this is the best AI can do, I'm not interested in wasting my time.

I read the fiction novel Termination Shock a few years ago and it was about this kind of solar engineering. The premise of the book is pretty solid: it's surprisingly cheap to do this, and there's no international organization to oversee it, and in fact we've been dismantling or at least weakening the rules based global order for a decade or more. Some country or organization somewhere is going to calculate that doing this will be a net benefit to themselves, and will just start doing it. Heck we *were* doing it inadvertently with ship emissions, and when we stopped it created a termination shock of its own. There's no way that this won't happen, and then it's going to open the floodgates on geoengineering. Only *then* will we get enough countries together to make some international agreements.

Laser Cooling is very cool.

Modding me down doesn't make me wrong, mods.

My opinion as a pragmatist is that most western institutions do a passably good job most of the time, but are imperfect and need to be constantly scrutinized to make sure they're serving the interests of the taxpayers. But what I'm talking about here is trust. There are many things that institutions could do to communicate in a way that doesn't do so much harm to their trustworthiness. I think that's an area where people are still learning how to do it "the right way." We're not there yet.

Wait, I thought Tylenol caused autism. Is there Tylenol in the vaccines? What's going on? LOL

First of all, trust in institutions is falling everywhere across the western world, not just in the US, and that drop in trust is bipartisan in the US. Secondly, there are real reasons for a general decline in institutional trust. In medicine, but also in economics, with the 2008 financial crisis that was caused by a failure of the institutions that are supposed to regulate such things. The rush to label anyone who questioned the origin of the COVID-19 virus as racist, only to have most authorities eventually admit that a Wuhan lab leak was not only possible, but likely, was another example. Again, the falling trust isn't a left or right issue. Does it help when RFK Jr. is running the CDC? Obviously not. But do you really think the state governments are immune to this falling trust? Definitely not.