They already have altered it further.

Yes, MS is now officially worse than The Empire.

Not disagreeing, but Peter Attia likes to talk about healthspan. Most of us are fine with dying at 80. Most us will happily spend whatever we can to ensure the last half of our life doesn't suck. For me personally, in my 40s, (where I'm still at), I am in the best shape of my life, caridio-vascular-wise and strength wise, but recovery is a BITCH. I can do more pullups than ever. I workout nearly daily and eat really really well, even have gotten good about getting sleep, but the difference between me in my 40s vs 30s or 20s is I can barely get out of a chair after a good workout...for like a week. I used to be able to do much more and recover in a day, maybe 2 if I really fucked myself up...now it's several for modest workouts. I can't even run for more than a few minutes on concrete without knee pain the next day (but can bike 50 miles effortlessly) . I dread it getting worse...also the vision deterioration sucks badly.

So even if you make it 100, whatever you're doing to make you not feel like garbage will probably give you cancer...if life generally doesn't. I agree, I think we've hit our limit on total lifespan. Historically, we've always had people reach 100, even long ago, it was just much rarer.....so in my view, those genetically lucky outliers show the theoretical limit...what kills most, their system just wasn't impacted by, but none of them every made it to 120, 130, etc. The best we can hope for is more people to make to the age of those old folks in Japan.

However, there are also generic outliers who barely age...who are energetic and healthy and cognitively sharp into their later years...and it's not just the stuff we know about like diet and exercise...I've met a few who eat and exercise mediocrely...and known many who are supremely healthy and fit and age like shit. We should really figure out what is different about those genetic outliers. The economy would benefit MASSIVELY if we learned how to slow aging...as would everyone's quality of life. Imagine a 70yo being as sharp as a 40 yo and continuing to work if they wanted to? Imagine those over 60 being heathy enough they can be active and fit and die from car wrecks, stupidity (selfies near edge of cliff type stuff) or sudden cancer instead of slow, expensive, miserable deterioration? Aging makes us miserable, makes our total economy poorer, and completely sucks. While it is fundamentally a fact of life, like cancer, war, and disease....the more we can reduce it's impacts, the more society would benefit as a whole.

So to me, this is not the vanity project of weathly silicon valley types or Joe Rogan (who is really into this). They just have the means to pioneer something we all should be concerned about, but for some reason, place mild social stigma on. I personally believe there is a lot that can be done to ensure our later years and really all of our years are much healthier...and a lot of the techniques are not yet discovered.

we've had non stop growth for decades. We're producing more every year. We've been able to feed, shelter, cloth, and give medicine to the entire population of Earth since the late 70s.

Our problems are distribution. Which is addressed quite well in this short video here.

It only takes 4% to knock you over after you miss your punch and your center of gravity is off. Look up the word "threshold" then try reading about the concept of addition... and you may want to try saving your money over time... just as good practice if you still don't understand accumulation.

1) cars have a weight problem. Shipping is relatively negligible which is why it's the cheapest way to send massive amounts of heavy things and rivers are still a big factor in economies. Battery tech not practical for cars can be used in boats... especially massive boats that just keep getting bigger to save money... they can afford to get a little bigger or give up a little space like the older smaller ships already do. Don't be fooled thinking they can't stay in business if government forces them to forfeit a little profit which they managed just fine with in the past before they squeezed blood from stone cutting every corner possible.

2) modular battery packs means specific batteries are not relevant long term because tech can easily be changed and fuel cells are also equally possible. Even generators... trains have been electric for generations for their superiority and it's the generator that runs on gas. Failed and obsolete tech can be swapped out easily making this ship is low risk.

3) They don't even have airfoils on this ship! They expect to save up to 30% using airfoils on ocean travel: https://www.bbc.com/news/techn....

Oh, you mean the kind of due diligence and intelligence it takes to calculate a profit much greater than any potential fine if it was suddenly discovered you made an “oops” in your data marketing systems that enabled you to “leak” your customer data to those paying well for it?

Auditing indeed.

Affordability is relative if the end result is a tax burden and/or government footprint being reduced significantly. What people cannot afford, is to assume subsidies themselves are not full of corrupt cost.

And for the majority, all new cars are essentially priced at unaffordable regardless of type. The status quo, isn’t really working well anymore. Especially when debt costs have skyrocketed due to interest.

If a “small fluctuation” was all it took to eradicate 6.2 gigawatts of additional capacity on top of an overall 2% loss, then someone better be backing up the wind turbine manufacturers up against the wall to make them prove those efficiency and ROI claims.

Good luck explaining to the Board how a “small fluctuation” resulted in that kind of project loss.

2% my ass.

That does not describe a mere 2% drop. What that does describe is a full justification to force wind manufacturers to prove their hardware ROI claims, because it appears that 6.2 gigawatts of new capacity was made 100% irrelevant by “weaker-than-normal” breezes? Are you fucking kidding me? THAT is all it takes to shoot a nuke-sized hole right through a years worth of project work?

6.2 gigawatts of additional effort, was basically all for nothing. ALL of that combined is your actual loss. Pick a number somewhere a LOT higher than 2%.

If you REALLY want to compare costs between ICE and EV solutions, fine. Remove ALL government subsidies, tax breaks, kickbacks, and deductions both solutions are getting right now, and just tell me what it costs a consumer.

That will tends to say a lot about the overall cost of the new compared to the old. It says a lot when you simply cannot make or sell an EV without government assistance in some way. Or losing your ass on every car.

That entirely depends on if the price is right.

Nearly everyone gets offended when you have the unmitigated gall to charge money for many online services now, including apps, email, and web hosting. Why do you think so many businesses are hosted on social media? Because the price is right.

All these excuses about being “too difficult” have been around as long as the layman has. Building and maintaining a web/email server, is not a commoners task. Never was, and likely never will be.

I'm fairly sure the reason for the lack of 2FA is the usual "I'm too important to be inconvenienced" screwup. Where C-Levels demand that they have full reign, full access and maximum privileges, but also can't be assed to agree on bare minimum security features because it's "too complicated" for them.

Let the users jump through all sorts of ridiculous hoops to access their locked down accounts, but I'm far, far too important to be in any way inconvenienced (hell, remembering that 8 letter password that doesn't conform to any password standards we require everyone else to follow) when I want to access my all-access account.

Which I don't use, because that's what my secretary is for. But I need to have it. Because I'm important.

Nooooo, say it ain't so! That's unpossible!

Companies just noticed that cloud services are a bit like a marriage. It's easy to get into, but if you want out, it gets expensive and chances are good that half your stuff will go missing.

It's 2%. Yes from Wall Street standpoint that's the end of the world and we should just shut everything down and kill everyone and everything. But from normal human standpoints you just build out a little bit of extra capacity. It's just kind of gross how endless growth has taken over every aspect of our civilization because we are continuously running away from the giant monstrous dragon that is Wall Street hoping the dragon eats The Hobbit before us