Did they ever use the word "revolutionary" to describe their work? No, of course not. Did they claim to have invented evaporative desalination? No, of course not. It's literally in the very first sentence of their abstract: "Solar-thermal interfacial desalination is a sustainable solution to meet the ever-increasing global freshwater demand." I really wish you wouldn't make things up like that.

So what do they consider to be novel about their work? That's in the second sentence of the abstract: "However, when treating actual ocean water, salt accumulation on the evaporator surfaces and brine discharge are major issues limiting the performance and posing environmental concerns." And they made significant advances in addressing those problems.

I know, it's much more fun to attack someone by pretending they said something different from what they said.

Says someone who obviously has never read any science fiction ever.

NoScript. No one gets to run untrusted code on your computer unless you approve it first.

To be fair (in a very cynical sort of way), is this really any different from boxing? People are paid to hurt themselves while crowds of spectators cheer them on. It's disgusting, but we've been doing it for a long time.

You obviously don't know who Cassandra was. To quote from Wikipedia, she was "a Trojan priestess dedicated to the god Apollo and fated by him to utter true prophecies, but never be believed... In contemporary usage, her name is employed as a rhetorical device to indicate a person whose accurate predictions, generally of impending disaster, are not believed."

When your entire argument consists of nothing but name-calling and lies, at least know what the names you're calling them mean!

40 years is much too optimistic. We're dealing with nonlinear phenomena. Things change slowly until they change quickly, and then they're irreversible.

Once we pass the first few major tipping points, the eventual transition of the earth to a hothouse state will be inevitable. When the arctic ice cap disappears, warming will accelerate dramatically. When the Amazon collapses, it will release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Both of those will accelerate thawing of the permafrost, releasing even more carbon. At that point, the earth's future will be locked in. The transition will happen over centuries, but it will be impossible to prevent. And then it might not swing back for millions of years.

Speaking of the more immediate concern of doomed cities, it's likely that a lot of coastal cities in the southeast US are already beyond saving. Just a few weeks ago a study concluded that New Orleans can't be saved. Miami and parts of Houston are likely in the same situation, or if they're technically still saveable they won't be for long.

The article includes a major qualification that was omitted from the Slashdot summary:

The thing they've ruled out is the high end estimate of how much CO2 humans will emit, not how much the planet will warm. The rate of warming has accelerated in recent years, not because of how much we're emitting but because natural feedbacks are starting to amplify it. There's growing evidence that the old warming estimates were too low, and each emissions scenario will produce more warming than we previously thought it would.

They're both things I don't do and don't miss at all. But eating a healthy diet makes me feel great. I get unhappy if I have to go a day without any fresh vegetables.

It's not because you were born different than me. Your body adapts to however you eat. It responds well to your typical diet because that's what it's used to. If you switch to a different diet there will be a short period of your body being confused and telling you to go back to what it knows. Then it will adapt to the new diet, and you'll find eating healthy food feels great.

Here is what the report says.

That all sounds reasonable and matches what has been the mainstream advice for many years.

It isn't.

Life is full of risks. There are no guarantees, but you can still shift the probabilities. People who exercise are healthier on average than people who don't. It doesn't guarantee you won't end up badly hurt, but your chances of a long healthy life are higher if you exercise. That's the best you can get.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting the term was any less demeaning in the early 2000s? That if companies keep viewing their workers as expendable cogs for long enough, it stops being sociopathic and becomes acceptable?

MATLAB, SAS, Mathematica, and SPSS are all commercial products. The long term trend is that all the proprietary programming languages are disappearing. Everything in the top ten is either strictly open source, or at least has an open source implementation available.

What is SQL doing on the list? Everything else is a general purpose procedural language, and then they added in one domain specific query language? If they're going to do that, why not also include HTML, CSS, XML, ...? I bet HTML would be in the top five if they included it.

It's not a different market. EVs are the way of the future. They made up 25% of cars sold worldwide last year, a massive gain from five years earlier when their global market share was just a few percent. They're continuing to grow fast almost everywhere. Ten years from now, ICE car sales will be a rounding error in many countries.

Honda failed to make competitive EVs. Instead of continuing to invest and figuring out how to compete, they're giving up. That's a recipe for obsolescence.

That's not a contradiction. A lot of people are upset at the way AI is being forced on everyone. They don't want it to expand, or at least not nearly so fast. If opposing data centers causes AI deployment to slow down, that's a benefit.

Let me translate his corporate-speak into English for you.

There, that's much more accurate.

I know, that's capitalism, right? Companies exist to make money. They aren't charities. Their responsibility is to their shareholders. They should do whatever is most profitable. And so on and so on.

If you believe that, you've fully bought in to capitalist ideology. Which, paradoxically, means you've fully bought in to Marxist ideology. It's a war between opposing sides, companies will do whatever they can get away with, workers who don't fight back will get crushed.

Ironic, isn't it? For nearly two centuries, the main counter to Marxism was that capitalism is not purely self serving, that companies do care about their workers, and that industry is mainly about cooperation between owners and workers, not conflict. And now the people who claim to be most supportive of capitalism have started rejecting that view and embracing the "everyone for themself" view of industry.