They've kind of got to get around to building them first...

Who would opt in to this? No matter how well the company tries to police this, there will be AI generated slop of artists singing terrible lyrics that they would never do in real life. Does is matter that the company can issue take down request after the fact when your new hit single "Adolf's Solution" featuring your likeness adorned with a silly mustache has already gone viral? Maybe that's on the nose enough for an LLM to shut down, but there are plenty of other terrible things that can be made with this and 4chan will try to make them all.

There aren't that many billionaires. The Wikipedia article on them says that there are only a bit above 900 in the U.S. and a little over 3,000 in the entire world. They have a lot of money, but only because other people voluntarily gave it to them because they valued what they were selling. Maybe this isn't the case worldwide and I'm sure there's a warlord or two that managed to export enough wealth from the people to be considered a billionaire, but most of them got there because they built something valuable, perhaps a few because their father did.

I don't entirely blame the problems of the present on previous generations either. They certainly could make life better for the current or next generation, but why should they. Many of them worked hard to get where they were. Many more worked hard and got nowhere. Why should they give up what they earned to spoil someone who lacks the context to even understand how appreciative they should be. They'll be dead in time and their assets will be passed along regardless of whether they hoard them right now.

If you want to blame someone for the world not turning out the way you wanted it to, look no further than the mirror. Why don't you amass the wealth or power to shape the world as you wanted it to look? Why would you expect anyone else to do it for you?

No, those are government jobs. No one in the private sector employs anyone (unskilled or otherwise) any longer than they have to. Unless they're in management of course. I think most managers are hired to waste the time of other managers that are also time vampires so that some engineers and developers can actually get things done.

I do disagree. I just installed Xubuntu for my 70yo non-technical BIL. A couple of apps had to be replaced, so I showed him the differences. Otherwise, no problems.

Which is measured how and actually means what in real world terms?

I already told you how it was measured.

And now you're moving the goalposts. You said Mackay's numbers were old and wildly off. Mackay's numbers match modern wind farms.

He may well have had reasonable numbers for some things, but he fudged numbers for a lot of other things

Aaaaaaahahahahah pull the other one, mate, it's got bells on.

You picked two things he "fudged the numbers" on. Both of them were fine. So now it's other, nonspecific numbers that are fudged. Cool.

Which figures? Land usage figures? Because that is mostly what he focuses on and he exaggerates the land usage of wind turbines to a fantastical degree, pinning it at 2 Watts per square meter.

He has it at 3 offshore. The London Array runs at about 3.2.

You've given a lot of reasons why he's wrong but the figures disagree. All I did was divide the yearly output buy a year and the land area.

Bu the way, Seagreen 1A is about 0.3 W/m2.

That would be around 107 Watts per square meter

You need to leave space between turbines...

Now, this is primary power, not just electrical usage, to be clear.

Yes, the book is sustainable energy without the hot air, not just sustainable electricity for current usages.

As for technological changes, solar cells have become more efficient and much cheaper.

A bit but insolation has not changed. Mackay quoted 20%,the best rooftop panels are about 25 now. So out of date, but it's not a huge change, either.

Will the personnel be outsourced to India, Pakistan, et al?

Notice they said absolutely nothing about using it to target keyword ads at you, build profiles about you to target you with ads, and whatever else they're doing with the data to push more bullshit ads on you. The only smart feature is to disable the account and use something else that respects your privacy.

In fairness this has always been called game AI.

There's worse ideas.

In practice the US has a lot of space and sunny weather, and tech has advanced. That combined with the regulatory environment means renewables are almost certainly going to be quicker to build up to the capacity needed.

But like I said, there are worse ideas.

You just referenced Dr. MacKay's book.

Yep.

I've been over it and t is full of faulty information. Aside from that, the information in it is just old.

So you say. And yet, his figures for wind farms match closely what the London Array which was commissioned in 2018. Tech does advance, but it's not going to yield an order of magnitude change in energy density.

Too much has happened both in terms of technological change and data collection since then for the book to be taken seriously.

Like what? Now floating turbines exist which do remove the 100m deep water limit he talks about. They are still experimental tech, basically and very expensive. Water depth maps haven't changed, and average wind speeds haven't that much either. His numbers appear to match current deployments.

Sam D is very good, and I think his analysis is broadly correct, but I would be wary of treating him as apolitical. He's a leading thinker for the centre-right, along with Sam Bowman (Sam Freedman completes the clever-Sam-centrist trifecta, but is on the left rather than right).

I've not actually encountered this chap before. This particular article didn't strike me (at a first read) as obviously politically biased. For example about how the conservation laws aren't in his opinion achieving the aims they intend to achieve, which I don't disagree with. I'm strongly conservationist (that's political), but despite stringent laws (they stop a lot) our biodiversity is still crashing, so to me the laws aren't working.

With the caveat that now just about everything appears to be political. Starmer's solution seems to be to cherry pick cauldron species, insult people who care, then just give up.

This. Energy *is* civilization, meaning more about ndant and *cheaper* energy advances our standard of living. I have nothing against renewables (we have solar on the roof), but: misguided emphasis on renewables has made energy a lot more expensive. That is the opposite of progress.

Yeah we're taking about the tunneling under the city bit. You're not going to tunnel all the way from SF to LA.

There is no way half that distance is as dense as central London. One of the feats that paid for was threading the line between an escalator and a rail tunnel with tolerances in the centimetres. They also built massive, high capacity interchanges with existing high capacity stations, something which isn't really much of a problem in California. You can leave that to later.