Fusion energy has being clearly extremely complicated.

Steady self-heating plasma for long duration hasn't being achieved yet. And we aren't fully sure if self-heating plasma will have the exact same behavior than external heated plasma. After all, how the energy reach the plasma is important.
Also the tritium feeding problem is not solved neither mentioned.
As the condition hasn't being achieved, there is no real data about the fatigue of materials under neutron leaks that won't be stopped at the shielding and fuel feeding.

In summary, nobody can ensure it's gonna work based on "papers". On paper you can propose an experiment with multiple goals and you declare success if most goals are reached. You don't propose a full reactor over exotic yet to prove concept full of problems yet to be solved.

This is just an operation to capture funding.

Without a real ABI-32 Wine will have to use an emulation layer if the processor can't run natively as a 32 bit process.

Now that Linux is getting a growing game player quota, there are gonna destroy a functionality that make that works?

I think they are naming "drones" just multipurpose rovers. Not flying drones, but rovers dedicated to menial tasks.

I know that's a hell of difference.

An order of magnitude at least.

But it's matter of time they do a similar concept for mammals, building artificial wombs instead of artificial eggshells.

And then, use it for humans will be only a moral issue, not a technical one.

I'm pretty sure most datacenters has plans to do it anyway.

It's natural to start with natural gas, as it's fast to build, and you need the power for backup anyway. But renewable is cheaper, so you can expect they build or import renewable electricity as soon as possible.

Obviously, because they are only making the excavation of the site.

That's the easiest part of the construction.

This battery is not there to maintain renewable 24x7, but to raise the capacity factor of the mix while reducing curltainment. The rest will be natural gas.

Big tech can easily get away from everything. Their legal departments are enormous, they have almost unlimited capital and they can bribe any regulator.

If you push regulations for content providers to be responsible of the user content you will only destroy the competition of the small creators that push their independent sites.

You're helping the Big Tech.

I'm not talking about protests (although that helps and give us time).

I'm talking about offering the true solutions of this problem (that it's used as an excuse).

We need to work with SO, desktop and browser developers to add a way to DECLARE the age of the personal account. NO IDENTIFICATION. Just a declaration.
Users are setup by an admin. Well, as simple as the admin can declare the age of the users. They can't override the configuration.

Browsers can call the SO to get the age declaration of the user. And with that, apply content restrictions based on age.

WE SHOULD DO THIS. Because that solves the problem, BUT WE SKIP THE IDENTIFICATION (that it's what they really want).

If we destroy the excuse, it's more easy to fight on the media. Because they are gonna lie. They are gonna push the narrative that avoid identification means "unprotect the children".
They don't care about the children. They care about themselves, and they want massive identification for the next step of establish censorship.

The real solution, if they were really pushing this for the arguments they say they do, would put very easy tools for parents to setup the devices.

NEVER GET A DEVICE TO A MINOR WITHOUT PREVIOUSLY SETUP IT CORRECTLY.

As simple as that. Every device should be setup by an adult.

And then, put the tools to use them easily. Most parents are not hackers neither capable with devices. Make the software as simple as possible for that configuration.

BUT WITHOUT ANY NEED OF IDENTIFICATION.

Otherwise you are trading a solution for a more bigger problem.

Instead... as most people see, it's not a problem for the people is pushing it. They want massive identification, and all of this is just an excuse.

Because they are pushing for a different motive (to know how does what) they won't care if RTOS doesn't do identification.

They will said that it depends on the conditions. And the conditions is if the user has the freedom of interact and speech freely in Internet with it.

That's the reason they attack the main desktop and mobile OS, not routers or whatever.

At current stage this is gonna be an absurd change. They will put an app that it will be easily skipped.
That's the reason that, if people doesn't drop this, they will enforce only "approved" software through TPM control.

Freedom speech.

This is a "global" (western) movement, and under the excuse of "protect the children" they are pushing certain conditions that force every system to real personal identification.

Why do that when in practice they already have being collecting ALL the information? (just see Google how integrates everything and any visit in other place automatically changes the view in other products, and most accounts are identified).

BECAUSE, not bound access can claim that was made by another person.

This is just an step to ENFORCE identification. And once identification is implemented, then punish certain future behaviors. Under excuses of spreading misinformation, "hate speech" and whatever, they have the intention of implement hard censorship.
Add to that a flood of false anonymous people that are just AI bots, and they will control most of it would happen in Internet.

If they care about children they won't enforce age verification. They will instead give tools to parents to configure safe setups for children. It's just as simple as account/browsers configurations and webpages that label their info based on the level required to access.

All of this is half implemented already for those who doesn't now. Legal p*rn sites usually have HTML meta labels indicating that it's adult content. These systems could be enforced and extended. They are easy and doesn't compromise any data.

But they push for real identification against central systems. Do you really believe that this is about children?
It's a ridiculous excuse. Specially while at the same time they hide Epstein case and lots of real children abuse.

In fact, the cheapest mix nowadays is a mix of solar, wind, batteries and natural gas for when there is a solar+wind daily deficit.

I would expect red states to invest in renewable as any other source of energy. It's just established industries who are interested in block competency using a lot of lies about renewables.

I remember the document "Affordable, rapid bootstrapping of space industry and solar
system civilization"

https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.032...

A decade ago it was proposed about develop the Moon with the assistance of AI. It's not about human colonization. Not yet. And more about robot colonization.

I think it's a great idea. Low risk (human missions are a lot more expensive), finally develop local resources, with a fixed cost per time, develop an exponential infrastructure.

The thing is, this proposition was developed before AI revolution, so I think now has more sense than ever.

Once you industrialize the Moon, create an true near self-sustaining, redundant and growing outpost become a lot more easier and logical.

Don't start with human colonization. Let's focus on robot colonization (instead of exploration) now.
And the Moon has lots of advantages in that regard. Relatively "high" gravity (in comparison with most rock bodies of the Solar System). Nearly real-time communication (just a pair of seconds apart). Some good metal reserves. Spots with near 24x7 light (in the poles, a bunch of solar groups of interconnected panels can reach that goal). Some ice to build fuel. A potential space elevator.

Not ideal for human colonization, but great for robot colonization, and we probably should start that way.
Manned program requires elevate the security and will raise the cost too much.

Let's be clear.

Sure, there are minor cases where the difference can mean something.
But not for the common folk.

In that sense, you aren't gonna find any practical difference.

I can understand manufacturers can feel that it's ok to push technologies that works on some contexts than current tech has problems like really big screens.

But most people aren't gonna pay for a premium capability that they can't see.

But at least the won't comply if the change doesn't mean more price or a greater disadvantage. So if manufacturers include it for free, it's ok.
Just people won't care.