The title is misleading: "50 times more accurate than traditional GPS backup systems" is NOT the same as 50 times more accurate than GPS.

As is to be expected for a group called 'Los Viagras' ;-).

I am not an anti-vaxxer but I declined my shots anyway. Why? Simple: because I know my statistics and found out that the risk of taking a vaccine that was only tested for short term effects did largely outweigh the risk of having a deadly COVID-19 infection at my age and with my health profile. The thing is: I think a lot of people had the 'gut feeling' that this was the case for them too but didn't have the tools at their disposal to quantify it. So they went with their gut feeling and being human they needed a narrative. They then became anti-vaxxers or conspiracy theorists, whatever provided them a backstory matching their gut feeling.

And remember: They only needed that narrative because the pressure to go against their gut feeling was piled up from all sides in heaps. You reap what you sow. So everyone that has helped piling up that pressure should scratch themselves behind the ears and be aware that theypartly are responsible for creating a large group of people that has turned from society. We'll have to deal with this for perhaps generations.

It is just a tool. A powerful one. Learn to use it properly.

Err... if it was more deadly I think they _would_ vaccinate. It is all about weighing the odds. Extremely small odds of serious illness against the fully unknown odds of long-term adverse effects of a vaccine...

Seriously: at 51 years of age and in reasonably good health, the risk of me dying this year from something completely else, like a car accident, shooting, falling down my stairs, cancer, etc etc is about 70 (yes seventy) time higher than me dying from Covid-19. And yes you can calculate these odds: https://www.brain2web.nl/en/po...

So I understand people not vaccinating. Like I understand people wishing not to. You on the other hand should think again be careful what you wish for. Deadly diseases can come at any time and what is there is no vaccine (yet) and you are first to get it...

Separating the plastics from other garbage by people may be a problem but can be done fully automated. Putting it in the hands of individuals at the source is utter madness, as many start to realize.

All you need is a well balanced pyrolysis process. Works for all types of plastics. It is not very difficult and it is already being done at some scale by several startups. More about this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

Instead of what they may be thinking this course of action will not lead to an increase in the number of vaccines but a decrease. I was recently informed by a Pfizer employee on how their vaccines are assembled (roughly of course, not in detail). Pfizer needs at least 3 highly specialized factories for that, one creating the mRNA, one creating the lipid particles and a third handling the assembly. Even for Pfizer, this is a difficult product to make and it is very unlikely that it can be replicated without Pfizer's help on a short term. The estimated time to start something like that up from scratch is around 2.5 years.If you have the right people. I think the same will be true for the Moderna vaccine.

As moves are being made towards suspending the underlying patents, at least at Pfizer, the willingness to help out seems to decrease. And who can blame them. We are talking about 20 bucks for a shot. That is not overly expensive, even for so called 'poor' countries. Deduct production costs and research costs (that have been huge since the mRNA development underlying this vaccine has been ongoing for many years) and I think to complain about that prices is ludricous. Even Pfizer and Moderna need to make money.

I guess if they push it too far, these companies may say: "Ok, then do it yourselves and see where how far you can come", and turn away. Good luck with that!

The more you inhibit it by hindering its spread, the more infectious it will get... apparently almost no one realizes that...

Really? THAT is what you come up with? Occasional drug use? What did you smoke? If you ever do alcohol you are in the same danger zone...

I find this mistake is often made even by experienced engineers. The fact that something correlates does not prove causality. People with problematic backgrounds often reside in polluted area's, simply because living there is cheaper/achievable. This proves exactly nothing.

Hmm... Call me a sick fuck then because rather than killing myself, my wife and my children driving into that upcoming 2 ton truck, I would choose to hit the pedestrian every day of the week! And to add a bit of fuel to the discussion, I (and I suspect there are many that agree with me) would only ever buy a car that makes decisions that takes ME into account first and THEN starts looking at minimizing collateral damage. But, like you said, I'm a sick fuck by thinking this apparently...

Yeah good idea. Let's start messing with this incredibly complex system on which all our lives depend and for which we have no validated model to predict what will be the outcome because we are seeing some measurements results lately that surprise us a bit because we don't have a clue of how it all works in the first place! Grand idea!

'wind is clearly one of the cheapest source of energy.'

For power compagnies, maybe, not for end consumers. If you have the money, solar panels on your roof are a very good investment giving you a ROI of around 15% per year. After 8 or so years, you have payed off your investment but keep getting that 15% year after year. Try getting that from a bank or stocks. Wind turbines however are rarely a possibility for normal people and they end up buying that green energy from the same old power companies. Those companies love that of course! Wind energy keeps people dependent on the old structures and keeps them paying. THIS is the reason wind energy is pushed so much by lobbyists in many countries, not it's technical or economical merits....

But then if you read the description, it turns out not to work by splitting water into it's atoms. Does it? It works by extracting solved air from the water, exactly like fish do. Or are you saying that fish are a hoax too?