Here is a conundrum. If you make web7 that is betterer but if I make web 2000 it's obviously dated.

I don't think self-teaching is innately rare. It is the default mind and skillset among the poor/rural communities even if they are for a number of reasons focused on more immediate needs for those skills.

Still there are definitely things which require experience and those tend to be more efficiently transferred with the guide. Usually the roadblocks are small pieces here and there. Perhaps that is the best blend, a self-learner combined with a mentor they can reach out to.

It comes at a price though. Video is really only a good medium for a superficial level of focus and complexity. The rise of youtube instruction has been great but the decline of textual resources that has coincided with it is depressing sometimes.

"And if there is a societal change, there is no need for Web 5."

I disagree with this. No matter how society changes human nature isn't going to change with it. There will never come a time when all people are trustworthy, it will forever remain that most people are usually honest in most ways. Social change can shift the ways around but that is it.

The most sound strategies are and always will be strategies that assume no trust.

I'm not specifically supporting THIS proposal and web 5 (or opposing) but something like this will be needed. I do disagree with the notion that blockchain is the key to every decentralized lock.

By that logic we should never do anything.

Can we put the process in overdrive.

Not necessarily. It sounds like they have been all over but things like the engine design freezes they are talking about could have shut it down and required a redesign.

Additionally, being casual aka relaxed has been objectively proven to increase work output and quality.

See, this guy is a perfect example. Control.

Work being casual isn't a bad thing. Staff aren't being hired to be subject to control or signing up to be controlled. They are being hired because there is a task or set of tasks which needs to be performed in order to make a profit. End of story.

Or getting modded down for pointing out the popularity contest that is a blight on science. Nobody should be shunned for research which disagrees with popular consensus there could be nothing more antithesis to the principles of science than that.

They want to treat staff as if they were children who need constant supervision. At our company they've resorted to first requiring pictures on skype and now are pushing for everyone to have functional cameras just so they can stop people from working in their PJs. Anything to assert control.

" But in 25 years we will have much better panels and they will be way cheaper, probably everything will be replaced."

It is not even remotely acceptable to spend trillions of dollars to have to do it again in a couple decades and those aren't minimums they are manufacturer warranties based on when the panel output will reduce to below acceptable levels. Additionally most solar installations are not sized for a double requirement in addition to accounting for average sunshine so they will fail to provide even enough power for the home well before that 25yr mark.

Yes yes, battery technologies exist that last longer... with servicing which itself carries an impact and without decent energy density. The battery problem is perpetually 10-20yrs away from being solved. The ecological impact of gathering enough raw materials to cover the roofs around the globe with these panels and supply all the batteries is massive and PERMANENT and doing it over and over again is hardly a valid solution over the long haul. I doubt we'll make it even a century on that path. Trusting that people in the future will magically pull better answers out of the air is how we found ourselves in this boat.

Fusion is a possible solution for one side of this problem. But not today. Today the answer is nuclear and the waste everyone loves to mention has many uses, including providing power. As I said Hydrogen for the batteries. As a bonus the clean production of hydrogen is also the production of its waste product, clean water.

People hate hydrogen because oil companies hope to retrofit the existing gasoline infrastructure and utilize it so it benefits oil billionaires. Solar and wind get pushed so heavily because a different set of evil billionaires in California and China are robbing us blind in the process.

The panels are rated for 25 at the top end and many much less. Whether they are cleaner than fossil is only relevant when comparing to fossil. Battery tech is generally less than half that with those that technically last longer needing servicing. Both are also delivering diminishing efficiency across that whole time. I've also seen estimates indicating even covering every roof wouldn't actually produce enough output.

If we pretend it is viable. Fusion would be a better answer, especially combined with hydrogen cells such as Toyota has been working on... or rather it would be part of a well designed answer. Even with fusion providing near limitless energy it is still central production and that creates grid vulnerabilities and failure points. Ideally we'd still have a decent redundant distribution of nuclear and renewables to hedge against failures.

Neither those batteries nor those panels last very long and the production and shipping of both is terrible for the environment. Proponents will quickly point at coal plants or gasoline powered cars and the relative difference. Last I checked destroying the planet still counts even if you destroy it somewhat less than something else.

That is hindsight. At the time it wasn't nonsense at all and they branded crackpot anyone who tried to work on cold fusion regardless of their own credentials. Destroyed their careers and pulled the rug out from their funding.