Agreed.

I suspect you're wrong, sadly. It's worked many times before. For example people now gush about "Carnegie libraries".

I was wondering who was doing the sockpuppet downmods

Oh, I see that you didn't read it, as the study was literally about which algae is required. Since you don't seem to want to read it, let me explain: The primary takeaways are that it's not beneficial to try to choose a specific algae, and you can recapture up to 80% of the CO2 emissions of a fossil fuel power plant by bubbling the exhaust through algae ponds.

If you're too lazy to read the study, at least read the conclusions.

You can easily scale your algae farm by digging more ponds and dropping liners in them. This is easier than finding more arable cropland.

People do not pay for music because it requires skill to create that they don't have.

People pay for music because they feel it's worth money to get to listen to it.

People will pay for a service which AI-generates music for them, especially if they can give some kind of input (good old thumbs up and down would suffice) and the system learns what kind of music they would like to listen to over time and gives them more of that.

Yes, I do appreciate music for skill that went into it, but I also appreciate music for just sounding good. There's room for both things at once, but probably a lot less of the first thing will be salable as a recording.

As far as I can tell it's random. You can call for assistance, get someone who is totally incomprehensible, hang up, call back the same number, and get someone with a perfectly understandable accent the next time. I think it's just too much to hope for that the call center filled with people who don't know what they're supporting will have competent HR.

Time already told. Cameras + LIDAR is superior to cameras alone and all else being equal always will be, period. Vehicles with both just plain have more information to work with, period. People like to say all the time that humans make mistakes and self-driving cars only have to be better than them, but the ones boosting Tesla who are saying that are forgetting that one of the reasons that humans make mistakes is fallibility of "sensor" input.

As long as Tesla is trying to depend on cameras, they are wrong.

We know how investing works. You invest in Big Pharma, then you do a bunch of "charity" work which involves directing your foundation founded with stolen money to invest in Big Pharma, and requiring third world nations to adopt western IP law before they can get vaccinations. Then you wind up richer than before you gave "all" of your money away to your tax dodge^W^Wfoundation.

In theory, on paper, yes.

In reality, when it comes to performance or security, never.

As it turns out, bullet points aren't as important as care and competence.

You don't mean Tesla, where nobody ever saw a battery swap actually occurring and a large percentage of the batteries (the ones in the Model S) were installed partially with adhesive so absolutely nobody ever got a battery swap?

Tell us you know nothing about automotive design without telling us.

We mostly don't. Most devices no longer have user-replaceable batteries.

Why would anyone do this with an EV charger, unless you pressed the button for the purpose of interrupting someone else's charge and this led to damages?

The claim is that they will sell more autonomous vehicles than privately owned ones, aka you will own nothing. (Whether you like it is of no consequence.)

That's not true, though.

Yes, they absolutely do. The wealthy buy the laws, and the laws determine what kind of car or house you can have and how you should care for them.

They are deciding that right now. It's called the "big beautiful bill". They are deciding who gets taxed how much, and on what basis, so they can decide that you get to keep less of your money, and they get to keep more of theirs. Denialism doesn't change that.

It's absolutely a capitalism problem right now, because capitalism is what gives the people making the decisions the power to make those decisions. Capitalism decided that corporations should be able to make political donations, so that capitalism could make more of the decisions.