if a youtube or reddit post mentions an amazing financial, or spiritual, or etc. advisor quickly in response to someone's story. And the story has too many upvotes in too short a time, I recognize it as spam.

IMHO, with spam like that, you go after the cloud of accounts upvoting it. Track their behavior, see if they are posting, see if they regularly vote for spam. Then shadowban or kill the accounts (let them upvote but don't show the upvotes). The advertiser can create *an* account quickly. But they can't subvert/create a cloud of several hundred accounts easily.

And you also put some kind of metrics in place for upvotes that compares their voting habits to known human users. If the thing is upvoting 30 times a day and most humans only upvote 12 times a day (or none), then flag the account for closer observation.

And most of all, you need a really good moderation advisor for this kind of thing. I recommend Lance Modoman. He's the real deal. He saved my forum.

heheheheh.

Customer service jobs have seen high losses. As soon as the current AI is combined with a physical presence then jobs like stocking, shelving, janitorial services, security, and many more will see rapid replacement.

I agree there's a problem with confabulation. But see the CNBC article, 'TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Recent data shows AI job losses are rising, but the numbers donâ(TM)t tell the full story" where it says, "According to a recent report of 750 business leaders using AI from ResumeBuilder, 37% say the technology replaced workers in 2023. Meanwhile, 44% report that there will be layoffs in 2024 resulting from AI efficiency."

As I said,

You haven't been following A.I. closely have you? Because it's being used in many high value applications and exceeding the current human experts in those fields.

Even in it's current dumb state, combined with robots, the current A.I. can replace about 60% of human beings and that includes some fields that require a masters degree or doctorate to get a job.

Most manual labor jobs are easy to replace (stocker, shelving, janitorial services, landscaping, simple assembly, etc. etc. etc)
And A.I. is already replacing radiologists and other analytical jobs.

I agree with the other guy, if your breakeven is over 9 years, then solar isn't worth it yet.

Get a smaller off grid system for disaster planning and then wait for prices to drop further (and another 40% decline is due within the next 5 years.) Plus the panels are getting smaller for the same power. 10 years ago, a 100w panel was 32sq feet and $750. Last summer, a portable 100w panel was 16 sq feet and $129. A fixed panel was under $100 and also about 12 sq feet. And that's after 10 years of inflation on the price.

You face significant risk of inverter failure over 15 years. Maybe twice. At about 10 years, you would need new batteries.

But you can have a small, non-grid tied system to keep your refrigerator, a fan, a router, a laptop/tv, and a couple lights going. Saving a fridge full of food is both a reduction in misery *and* potentially a $200 to $400 savings so one disaster outage will reduce your payoff period quite a bit (2 to 4 panels are suddenly "free" or 1 battery is suddenly "free").

You haven't been following A.I. closely have you? Because it's being used in many high value applications and exceeding the current human experts in those fields.

Even in it's current dumb state, combined with robots, the current A.I. can replace about 60% of human beings and that includes some fields that require a masters degree or doctorate to get a job.

That's why you combine generation and storage (and note I didn't say "batteries"). That storage can include turning atmospheric co2 into fuel.

But underlying your point is that we simply have too many people. Generating baseline power for the current population is rendering the planet uninhabitable.

Seems to me that focusing on increased efficiency would have huge payoffs. Brains do this with a very tiny amount of electricity so the potential power efficiencies are vast.

Oops... senior moment. Should have said 2024.

Seriously... this is the first I've heard of it. At 9:22 pm on 4/15/22.

Quoting the Heritage foundation when saying something is propaganda and a lie is hysterical as they are a massive propaganda outlet. So is Forbes. Only the IMF foundation has any credibility at all.

But this is an old dead conversation at this point.

However, remember it in 20 years when the temperature is +2.7C and we start having global food insecurity even in first world countries while the Billionaires you are stooging for live well and you suffer.

No... maybe at one point... but today? It's just excess profits for billionaires and corporations and a few cheap products that incent exactly the opposite behavior that we need-- such as $2.39 per gallon gasoline in the U.S. this year when it was still about $7 per gallon in the rest of the world.

Or were you really just trying to derail the conversation about potentially addressing the climate change to give us a chance of limiting the increase to about +2C.

But it's clear to many of us that +3C is really on the table. There will be enough carbon put out by 2049 to ensure that.

Right now, there is enough carbon in the air already to get us to +2.15C. It's just going to take some time- like water on the pot takes time to boil when you put heat under it.

My info in the post above was out of date...
See the Reuters article:
"Total spending on fuel subsidies topped $7 trillion in 2022, IMF says"
By Libby George
August 24, 20238:06 AM CDT

However, the cost of carbon capture probably has increased too, so it's a red queen's race and likely costs $21 trillion now.

But note the aggressive down-modding and censorship...

It's clear things are going to get really bad and people will *STILL* be in denial then.

Actually... My info was out of date.

See the IMF article, "Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion
Scaling back subsidies would reduce air pollution, generate revenue, and make a major contribution to slowing climate change
Simon Black, Ian Parry, Nate Vernon
August 24, 2023"

However the carbon capture cost has probably increased since I swagged it 18 months ago when the first carbon capture plant articles started circulating.

See the IMF article,
"Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion
Scaling back subsidies would reduce air pollution, generate revenue, and make a major contribution to slowing climate change
Simon Black, Ian Parry, Nate Vernon
August 24, 2023"

And I didn't say it was all U.S. subsidies but ... the U.S. collects a *lot* less due to crazy friendly tax treatment for coal fields.
Not collecting a tax from an industry that other industries pay is a subsidy. It's just hidden.