That is an over simplification. The solutions may exist in a technical sense (for at least the energy production industry, and not the 70% of other sources we have for carbon emissions), but the scale does not. Even now countries that are most actively investing are finding very real problems and setbacks in adopting systems. You can buy all the solar you want, if you can't connect it to the grid it doesn't matter. If you can't move the energy around to where it is consumed it doesn't matter.

And on top of that many of our adopted solutions are competing with each other. E.g. The EU's mandate to eliminate F chemicals is already placing serious pressure on electrification upgrades needed to adopt more green energy due to supply constraints of non-SF6 switchgear. So you have the choice of decarbonising power generation or decarbonising the grid (SF6 isn't used much but with 25000x the global warming potential to CO2 it is actually a significant contributor), but you can't do both quickly.

That's just one example, the world is full of others. The classic example is nuclear. Even if want to invest everything we have in nuclear we won't be able to built it, we don't have the people or expertise, that's stuff that takes decades to build.

If you are experiencing a perverse incentive I think the best thing to do would be to hand in your fucking medical degree. Doctors are required to make life and death decisions all the time. It's part of the job. If you mentally can't handle that then choose a more appropriate career.

Then setup your grammar checker. You do know there are about 40 different settings you can set in Word to define writing style for the gramma checker right? Word doesn't complain about any semicolon used correctly unless you've set the grammar style specifically to not do so, for example setting it up for a formal writing style.

Run-on sentences are not necessarily bad, just discouraged in some style guides. The biggest problem with run-on sentences is that they can cause a lack of clarity at which point rather than reaching for a semicolon you should rewrite the clauses. Neither of the examples in the quiz lacked clarity.

How is it a security vulnerability that a driver is available on Windows Update? Windows Update will only load the driver if the hardware is present and needs it. Those legacy outdated drivers available do not get magically loaded onto a machine.

Huh? What does me liking or hating Musk have to do with Musks actions? Please stop using your hands to type and use them to tap out and remove his dick from your mouth.

To be fair a large portion of inventing new protocols is to eliminate the cruft and problems of old ones. "Solving" new problems (those created by marketing departments) is only part of the equation. Older protocols weren't necessarily designed with the context of modern computing in mind, be that speed, security, or the number of devices needing IP addresses.

Customers being served ads was the compensation. You're talking about two sides of the same coin.

Android Debug Bridge? I think we need to move beyond three letter acronyms and add a 4th letter. :-)

This achieves nothing. Meta and their evil bullshit isn't the driving force behind the evil of social networks. It's the users who drive the pull here. Block Meta, an equally shitty company will just take their place.

Distillation isn't clean. It requires heat. And while more heat is used for cracking, heat is used for distillation *in more places* in a refinery. Crude oil is heated in furnaces, after distillation it is heated again in furnaces for another round in vacuum conditions. Downstream of a cracking unit it will be heated again so the cracked products can be distilled.

While I'm skeptical that this will ever find use in the industry, the reality is oil (and previously distilled products) are distilled in many places throughout a refinery, and needs to be heated to do so each time.

Only the dirtiest most horrible refineries do this. Virtually all western refineries moved on from oil firing lances 40+ years ago. For the most part the energy self generated is due via far cleaner and lighter fuel gas components, while the heaviest molecules are sold. How heavy? Depends on refineries. Some will sell bitumen for your road as the heaviest components, others will sell coke for industrial smelters. A tiny subset of refineries will gasify their coke, they would fit your description too.

Right there with you until you got to this point. Very rarely do refineries (in the west) flare unwanted products. At the refining stage virtually all products are wanted to some degree as they can all be sold at some price. Why do you see flames anyway? Well two reasons:
a) safety - almost all western refineries flare for safety reasons during process upsets, changes, or to prevent outright dangerous overpressure scenarios where relief valves direct hydrocarbons to flare.
b) safety - I said it again because a flare that isn't flaring is potentially creating an explosive situation in the refinery, so there's always a pilot flame on the flare, often more than one. This isn't unwanted gas though, it costs money to run that pilot flare.

Remember anything you see burning at a refinery is a product that isn't being sold.

The situation is different when getting oil out of the ground. The primary process there is followed by transportation and in that regard it is hard to capture and transport unwanted stuff, so methane can typically be burnt off as you're only able to deal with oil. But a refinery can deal with everything in the crude.

While that is true it's important to not get caught up on the number 90%. The problem with getting oil out of the ground is that most emissions aren't the result of refining it, it's the result of burning it. You're actually only talking about 5.5% carbon emissions when you focus only on the emissions from the stack from heating, and we have ways that can be managed if we put the right pressure on creating the necessary investments. A scary number of places still run oil fired furnaces for the heating purpose. But in theory we could make this process entirely green through solar / wind + electrolysis + hydrogen buffer + hydrogen firing.

It's all a question of dollars.

Dear god, how is it that you attempted to use two points to make your case and you not only succeeded in failing to show any connection between the points and your argument but also managed to get the critical point wrong. Clearly you know nothing about the industrialisation of the west if you think our waste management was never as bad as it is in Asia.

Errr. Maybe re-read what you quoted. They did define AI in terms of what it does, and what it does defined as simulate intelligence though a learning process, - which is precise what LLM models do.