The battery "uses a non-toxic electrolyte" that is "as safe as tofu brine" which is to say, it's not actually tofu brine.
Source of original publication: https://www.scmp.com/news/chin...
Actual study: https://www.nature.com/article...
Blaming Microsoft for systemd is Grade A crackpottery.
Agreed, however, its megalithic and heavily interdependent design is consistent with how Microsoft architects software which is why they hired Lenny.
The Linux community still responds to Microsoft as it was 30 years ago.
Oh, I'm sorry, did Microsoft stop being a publicly traded corporate hellbent on profiting regardless of the cost it has to other people? I just want to be sure because you seem to be making that case.
Today, MS don't make the money on Windows, they make it on MS 365 and Azure. Which means they don't care if you use Windows or Linux, as long as you use their online service.
So you're telling me that aren't using underhanded and deceptive tactics to push their own agenda? I could have sworn they were pushing the Edge browser really hard and integrating copilot into everything but, I guess if you say none of that matter, then it's all OK.
You need to stop the Embrace-Extend, Borg Linux etc comments. It just shows ignorance.
Let's be real, you're here waving a banner of naivete like they aren't plotting and scheming new way to try an take more money from everyone.
Look at their actual track record.
OH, I HAVE. These assholes have been trying to interfere with every facet of our lives. Do you think they give out free licenses to universities out of the kindness of their hearts? Did they try to get every school to require students learn to program because they think it's a skill they will honestly need? Are you truly so stupid as to believe such things?
You have deluded yourself.
Are you complaining about the long established indulgent practice by game console companies where they call something 'exclusive'
No, I'm complaining that it's being reported as if a practice of releasing "PlayStation Exclusive" titles on PC has stopped. However, the reality is that it had never actually started. I thought my suggested title would have made it apparent but I think that would require you read my comment in the first place.
The primary function is displaying ebooks,
Close but incorrect. The primary function is to make it easy to obtain and read ebooks. Without being easy the device it is considered to be garbage to most consumers.
PlayStation exclusives have never been released on PC before, have yet to be released, and now plans to make releases have been canceled. There is no "anymore" in there because it never happened.
Here's a proper title:
Sony Scraps Plan for PlayStation Exclusives On PC
should be effectively reburning in particulate.
They reduce particulate matter significantly but 20% of a shitload is still a lot.
You seem to be avoiding the point that it is release lead into the atmosphere.
So if anything only slightly dirtier in terms of smoke stack emissions vs the natural gas or propane counter parts,
Carbon emissions and particulate matter emissions are entirely different. Methane and propane burn clean but generate CO2. Wood is carbon neutral but significantly impacts air quality. Neither one is "slightly" anything compared to the other, they are polar opposites in these departments.
I would bet...
And you would lose that bet.
If you remove the primary function from a device then it follows that the device is no longer functional. The process of making a device non-functional is effectively destruction because it now lacks its functional raison d'etre.
Literal destruction? No.
Effective destruction? Yes.
Solar is the only practical renewable accessible to mortals. Wind is amazing at utility scale yet sucks otherwise. Hydro and geo are inaccessible to most.
Why would you presume the use of small scale when that's the least efficient use of the technology? Also, why presume you couldn't transfer power from a lower longitude? Most people are between 45 and -45 degrees. Also, your statement about geothermal energy generation is outdated as the technology has progressed.
I simply pointed out the facts of limited utility of renewables WRT winter heating.
You have pointed to the negative aspects of renewable energy and in turn completely discounted the negative aspects of fossil fuels by making an claim about the economics. Without looking at the the larger picture, you're just being a fool.
What is simple is the fact I have not offered any support or opposition to anything.
The situation is binary. You cannot be against one thing without intrinsically supporting another. It is analogous to In claiming amputating a gangrenous foot is "economically infeasible" because a prosthetic foot is not as good a the original and the surgery costs more money than doing nothing. However, you also refuse to acknowledge the costs associated with having to deal with a gangrenous leg. In doing so, you are promoting a more costly situation despite never explicitly claiming to do so.
have no duty or interest in providing a comparative analysis or adding up all externalities
Claiming a solution is economically infeasible needs to be weighed against the consequences of an alternative, which in this case is doing nothing about the problem. You are claiming that amputating a gangrenous is too costly and defiantly proclaiming there is no need to address costs associated with the alternative.
If you discontinue support for a device that prevents the user from accessing or modifying critical functions then it your company should be required to make a final update available that enables users to use the device as they please. Effectively destroying functional devices because it's not profitable is the worst kind of waste.
Do they want people to burn down datacenters? Because this is how you get people to burn down datacenters.
Not only is there a significant difference in insolation between seasons...
You have failed already if you are relying on a single form of energy generation. Try again.
You failed to answer a simple question about what the heck your statements were responsive to in the first place.
No, I have redirected from your denial of suggesting wood burning to the alternative of renewable energy. fossil fuel in general. If not one then it is the other.
Now instead of answering you appear to be making additional statements also lacking a nexus to anything I said.
The nexus is simple: if you aren't using renewable energy then you are supporting polluting. Polluting has additional costs to it that you have failed to incorporate into your concept of economic feasibility.
Angelenos have been noticing something strange: the Google Maps satellite imagery depicting the Los Angeles areas of the Pacific Palisades and Altadena now shows pristine neighborhoods untouched by the devastating fires of January 2025.
Of course, as we all know, those neighborhoods are in ruins. Why would Google pretend otherwise?
On Reddit, user TinyPinkSparkles asked, “Why is Google maps back to showing old satellite images of Altadena?" She continued:Not too long after the fire, Google updated the satellite imagery to reflect the fire and thousands of lost structures. Now it's back to pre-fire images of houses and businesses that are no longer there. Why?
There is no reason to expect this to change anytime soon. There is no enabling technology on the horizon and no relevant enabling cost trends.
It has nothing to do with the technology, the technology is entirely sufficient, the problem is people. Just because people are refusing change does not mean there is a problem with the technology, it means they are ignoring the external costs. When the consequences finally bear fruit, the whole lot of you will wail about how wrong it is and that it needs to be stopped, not for the sake of other people but because you will feel inconvenienced.
Over-provisioning at required scales is economically infeasible and environmentally unsound.
And you are basing this on what exactly?
Say what? Where is this coming from? I made a single statement about renewables/solar not being up to the task.
Then by all means, factor in the consequences of climate change. It only becomes more expensive to deal with as times goes on.
we use our wood burning fireplace insert during the winter whenever possible.
Have you considered the health consequences to yourself and the public?
If you want to encourage environmentally friendly behaviors amongst us regular folk, make electricity cheap and plentiful, and sourced from non-greenhouse gas generation itself.
That is not going to happen because people keep voting against it.
Modern, safe nuclear as a primary, stable source
And yet NIMBYs everywhere have eliminated that as a possibility. Also guess who paid to ensure there were extreme regulations on nuclear power? Extremists get funding from the incumbents.
When the price of owned solar comes down
The costs of solar panels has plummeted. The problem is you don't want to pay for it to be installed it and you don't want to install it yourself.
people who want artificial scarcity and a lower quality of life for no good reason
Fools will always exist. The question is if you are empowering them with your vote.
TL;DR: People refusing to operate in an altruistic manner isn't new behavior but it's always disappointing. Hyper-individualism is a plague.
1000 pains = 1 Megahertz
