Young people seem pretty in tune with it, although they have enough other problems like housing and unstable employment to worry about.

I'd suggest that it's less that people are numb to it, and more that most of them think they will be dead before it gets really bad, and in the mean time can afford air conditioning. Young people who expect to be around to the 2080s and beyond can see that they aren't going to escape it, while also not having benefitted so much from the decades of irresponsible emissions.

People are doing just that. There are various schemes for small scale investing in wind farms, for example. The profit is guaranteed, it's only ever a question of how long the payback time is, and it's usually a few years.

Money isn't the problem, wind farms are a great investment.

5 years is the fastest that China can build a new reactor, on the site of existing reactors. Some sites take up to an additional 5 years. New sites add at least an additional 3 years on top of that. So it's really more like a range from 5 years to 13 years, and that's assuming you have China levels of control over industry and local populations to make it happen, and it is all funded by government borrowing.

Thing is, if you are willing to go to those lengths, why not just install more renewables? In China, wind capacity has been growing faster than nuclear capacity, even if you only look at energy produced rather than nameplate. It's been directly displacing coal.

China needs to maintain a nuclear fleet to supply material for its nuclear weapons. For countries without nuclear weapons, it seems hard to justify, especially since renewables will deliver more jobs, and in democracies are less controversial.

I have yet to hear any practical solutions to the following issues, but if you have them then I'm more than willing to listen.

1. Speed of deployment. Even China needs 5 years to build one on a site where there are already other reactors. In Europe it's 20 years. It's not due to lawsuits or anything like that, e.g. all that was resolved for Hinkley Point C (the site of existing reactors) and it is still taking 20 years.

2. Cost. Nuclear is eye-wateringly expensive. The UK, the world's 4th largest economy, can't really afford it, and had to get Chinese investment. For smaller nations it is even less viable.

3. Proliferation is a real concern.

4. Nations are understandably not keen on relying on foreign technology and expertise, and developing their own is expensive and risky (financially and in terms of safety).

5. Grids are moving away from "base load" suppliers to demand shaping and reacting to availability of renewables, and nuclear is not good at varying output to integrate with that. We have seen that already in California, demand drops to zero during the day due to the amount of solar installed. Any solution like adding storage can be applied to cheaper renewables.

6. Safety is still an issue, and so far claims that a reactor is completely safe and unable to fail catastrophically have proven to be, shall we say, "optimistic".

7. Fuel supply is a concern for many nations, as is disposal of spent fuel.

By the way, I know about thorium reactors (every prototype has had some kind of serious defect) and Small Modular Reactors (most of the downsides of full size reactors, worse fuel efficiency, and decades away from commercial mass production). If you want to suggest those as solutions, please address the issues I highlighted with them as well.

Those high peak prices get factored into the contract. You pay them, just spread out over the contract period instead of for half an hour on a single day.

I'm on a variable rate plan that tracks the wholesale price of renewable electricity. It doesn't fluctuate as badly as it seems to in Texas, but I do save money by avoiding heavy consumption at peak times.

It's a useful measure of dissatisfaction with work in the general population. Often a symptom of below inflation pay increases, back-to-office mandates, bubbles like AI that people want to get in on...

Very likely the system consists of a microcontroller with certified code that limits the rate at which insulin can be administered. Then there is another separate microcontroller that handles all the wireless stuff and runs uncertified code. Even if it malfunctions and requests more than the safe limit of insulin, the first micro should ignore it.

I wonder though how it handles a flat battery. Without power there is no way of tracking time, and this no way of limiting the rate at which insulin can be administered. It could lock you out for N hours after power up from a discharged battery, but that wouldn't be ideal. It might be tolerable when combined with a supercapacitor or something, purely to keep time.

There's also the fact that Musk posted on Twitter just the day before that the trial was 100 days in and going well, so either he was unaware of the problem or lying.

Which brings us to the real problem. You can't trust what Musk says, so unless you are in a desperate situation like this poor guy who probably has a very poor quality of life, you would be crazy to have his tech implanted in your brain.

Not the first time for Apple either. The original iPhone "slide to unlock" was a rip off of LG's earlier all-touch-screen phone. Most of their industrial design seems to be ripped off from Braun.

As Steve Jobs said, "great artists steal."

Apple wants to replace the experience of handling a real instrument with an inferior one on an iPad. It's the enshitification of our world, which began with replacing physical buttons with touch screens in places like cars where you really need that tactile feedback.

It doesn't really matter if it takes a robot 9 months or even longer to get there. Primary concern is fuel efficiency and the amount of mass that can be delivered, because robots don't mind waiting, don't need 9 months of food and oxygen supplies etc.

Cutting the transit time for humans by 7 months would have a huge impact on both the wellbeing of the humans and on the time they could spend on and around Mars, since 14 months of supplies that would have been consumed on the journey are now available for that.

What is the half-life of the off-gassing process here? In other words, at what age are these cars relatively safe of those cancer-causing chemicals?

I had the same thought, I have to think the "new car smell" is in part that chemical, and after a few years that is pretty much gone.

I also have an older car (2011), which I'm happy about as well... I did buy it new but I drive around with my window down whenever I can so I figure that helped reduce my exposure.

I guess you don't live in the UK (or maybe the US either): possession of various 'how-to' manuals (e.g. how to build a bomb) are also illegal, and grounds for arrest and conviction for committing a crime.

Please note, I'm not saying this is 'right' (although I'll admit it's more 'complicated' than all knowledge should be freely available to everyone who asks for it), just that this is the current state of affairs.

Hmm, having ruled all the others out, it comes down to either disability or disease.

I'm not sure which more closely fits the bill: mental disability (can't take criticism); or disease (greed)...