Oh come on now - the outcome of the training is literally transformative (c.f. GPT, i.e. generative pretrained transformer), hence not a copyright violation. </s>

(Ok, so this ^ was sarcasm. If any lawyer uses this as a defence in court I apologise for potentially giving them the idea. On the plus side, perhaps I could then sue them for copyright violation??)

Except that the northern hemisphere has over twice as much (~2.1:1) land area as the southern hemisphere, meaning rather more plants.

If you ever look at a 'zoomed in' graph of atmospheric CO2 levels the curve is distinctly saw-toothed, as levels rise and fall over the course of a year.

I'll just leave this here, lest some other ignoramus takes your blather too seriously.

In fact, have a snippet, for those unable / unwilling to follow links: "The new analysis for Carbon Brief shows that China’s emissions were down 1.6% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025 and by 1% in the latest 12 months. Electricity supply from new wind, solar and nuclear capacity was enough to cut coal-power output even as demand surged, whereas previous falls were due to weak growth. The analysis, based on official figures and commercial data, shows that China’s CO2 emissions have now been stable, or falling, for more than a year."

Now, whilst I have seen breathless headlines suggesting that the US's total emissions are rising once more, allegedly as a result of Donnie's trumpie tantrums against wind and solar, I think I'd rather wait for the official historical figures (assuming they can still be collected) before engaging in too much finger pointing. Having said that however, and to engage in a little whataboutism, the most recent data I have easy access to shows that, despite being the global manufacturing centre of the world, China's CO2 emissions were 8.66 tonnes / capita in 2024, compared with 14.20 tonnes / capita in the US.

One is minded to point out the adages to "remove the plank from one's own eye, before trying to remove the splinter from the eye of another" and to "set one's own house in order, before it's too late"...

Yeah, that was a train wreck. Dude looks out of his tree...

That said, what puzzles me most about that interview was the financial breakdown by the host (to paraphrase): "Your market cap is ~$11 billion, you've got ~$9 billion on your balance sheet ... you provide all your stock, and then your cash, that gets you to $20 billion..."

Um, what?

You can't just add those numbers together to get the net value of the company (or the sum value of its assets, including goodwill, expected future earnings, etc.). They represent the same damn thing!

If the (net) assets a company holds are valued at, or worth, more than its market capitalisation it's normally a good time to buy shares. If the converse is true, then the market is, presumably, considering intangibles and expected future performance in arriving at the share price. What no-one on Earth does (or at least I thought so, up 'til now) is add-up both sides of the balance sheet and say that that represents the true value of the company. That's just insane!

Are you sure? I mean, really sure?

After all, the link you provided states "Disposable income is the amount of money a household has available for spending and saving after income taxes have been deducted" then goes on to qualify this with "This figure will be the most significant dollar amount because government taxes at the federal and state level are not included in the figure."

You'll note that missing from either of these quotes (or any other rider on that page) is any reference to: adjustments for state funded healthcare; parental leave allowance, or maternity or paternity pay; social security benefits / in work benefits; and so on.

So, I wonder, what is it, in toto, that you think 'Disposable income' covers exactly?

So, no actual citation to back up your rather far-fetched claim then, just more misinformation...

No, it doesn't!

I mean, if I were to quote from the actual guidance issued by the court a reasonable reader might agree that it says "Article 8 cannot be construed as conferring the right to live in a particular location"

What the guide does say is that "... in immigration matters, where there is an arguable claim that expulsion threatens to interfere with the alien’s right to respect for his or her private and family life, Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention requires that States must make available to the individual concerned the effective possibility of challenging the deportation or refusal of residence order and of having the relevant issues examined with sufficient procedural safeguards and thoroughness by an appropriate domestic forum offering adequate guarantees of independence and impartiality [...]. Moreover, a person subject to a measure based on national security considerations must not be deprived of all guarantees against arbitrariness. On the contrary, he or she must be able to have the measure in question scrutinised by an independent and impartial body competent to review all the relevant questions of fact and law, in order to determine the lawfulness of the measure and censure a possible abuse by the authorities. Before that review body the person concerned must have the benefit of adversarial proceedings in order to present his or her point of view and refute the arguments of the authorities."

In other words, in line with section 2 of article 8 ("There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime"), the refusal to allow an individual in / the deportation of an individual must be contestable and in accordance with the law - not that there is no legal right for that refusal or deportation.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, you (seemingly) being anti-immigration doesn't make the FUD you spout correct.

Citation required!

The current rules state (among other things) that "When applicants are considered a danger to national security or public order" asylum claims will be refused, and the applicant deported. One might imagine that a member of a terrorist organisation with a particular bugbear about western, secular, liberal democracies would fall into this category...

So... evidence?

Which isn't the same as a (relatively) stationary kid being hit by a 4000 lb object moving at 6 MPH. The impact, the transfer of momentum, will (usually) be greater.

But, yeah, agreed.

This story serves as a good advert for Waymo, imo.

That ship has sailed my friend...

Just one of many sites providing a 'counterpoint' definition.

Remember, intelligent minds adapt - living in the last millennium might not be the flex you think it is...

Start with £25:

spend it on alcohol in a pub, it'll last less than an evening...

spend it on alcohol from the supermarket, it'll last maybe a week...

spend it on weed, it'll last at least a week...

(ofc, depending on your location, ymmv)

Well, they're the ones who have been running a pilot plant. Presumably their efficiency figures come from their real world electrical power requirements / production. However, I must confess I share your scepticism. If we look at each component of the plant individually alongside their typical efficiencies (Compressor: 70% - 90%; Turbine: 40% - 95%; Electric Motor: 75% - 95%; Electrical Generator: 85% - 98%; Thermal Insulation: 80% - 98%) and factor in frictional / pressure losses in the pipe network (tbf will be small, but let's for now assume 5% losses, so 95% 'efficient') the overall efficiency will be a multiple of all these factors. This gives us, for the 'round trip':
Best Case: ~74%. Ok, this is essentially what they're claiming. So, their claims are feasible, assuming that they've installed 'best in class' everything, and that the motor / generator is operating in its optimum range.
Worst Case: ~14%. Slightly below your bottom figure, but given the terrible bottom-end efficiency for some types of turbines* (and I'm not sure, if I'm being honest, that these numbers apply in this scenario) that's not too surprising.

* Full disclosure. It's not entirely clear to me why the Betz limit wouldn't apply in this situation, which would limit the turbine efficiency to ~59%. I realise that the work is actually being done by the phase change, rather than simply the velocity, of the working fluid, but thermodynamics / fluid mechanics still presents conceptual challenges to me... :-/

Um, what? You've heard of valves right? Or taps? Picture, if you will, a CO2 fire extinguisher. Is there a constant energy burn required to maintain pressure within it? No! Just (mandated) yearly checks to see if the internal pressure is within spec. For a system that's designed to cycle over an 8 - 24 hour period this is very much a non-issue.

Not sure what your point is here. Industrial processes regularly use supercritical CO2. Why is this (^) relevant in this instance?

Cryogenics is usually defined as utilising temperatures below ~120 K (-153 C or -238 F). At 1 atm CO2 solidifies at -78.5 C. Their claims in this regard are solid, unlike the CO2 they're using...

Indeed, a lot of thermal mass will be required for the heating and cooling. Their illustration shows them using water, which has a SHC ~ 5 times that of CO2, and a larger single phase thermal range. Factor in phase changes and, once more, water's latent heat of vaporisation is much larger (~ 7 times) than that of CO2. In other words, you'd need, at most, one fifth the mass of water, if, and it's a big if, the temperature variance of both substances is the same. But it's not. The temperature range of the CO2 isn't going to vary that much, most of the energy will come from / be used in it changing phase (~348 KJ/kg). Factor in water's SHC (~4.2 KJ/kg/K), and limiting the acceptable temperature range of the water to, let's say 50 K you'd need (as an absolute minimum estimate) ~1/500th** the mass of water to 'buffer' the (temperature and) phase changes. 2000 tonnes of CO2 -> 4 tonnes of water -> 4 m^3 of water -> a 6' x 6' x 3' water tank.

How ever will they manage to build a system with such onerous requirements?***

** Again, full disclosure. Even I am doubting this figure. It seems ridiculously low, so my sarcasm above might not be warranted. You're definitely going to want to check my maths before relying on anything I've written above.

*** Yeah, I've obviously brushed past issues regarding (de)pressurisation temperature changes, and how the system actually manages the flux, but these are not new or unsolved problems. Heat exchangers are a thing. More water than my back of a fag packet calculation suggests will be required. Parent is also correct that there will be (potentially significant) pumping losses involved in such a system, which have not been factored into the overall efficiency calculated at the start.

It's a compressed gas battery. They are not new. It's not a 'breakthrough', it's a logical extension of well understood physics and engineering, with the only novelty being the fact that it's utilising CO2 as the working fluid and that the system might be cheaper than Li or Na batteries.

Hyperbole will be the death of us!

You're picking the wrong fight, with the wrong person here.

My personal belief system essentially starts with the principle - well, it's more a corollary of the first principle - that everyone has the right to choose how / when to end their life. I find the notion that suicide should be illegal is ludicrous, not to mention non-sensical - it's a little hard to prosecute someone who's dead! Likewise, I'm definitely not advocating banning conversations about suicide. It would be hard to talk someone out of it if the entire subject were taboo; it would be (and, alas, currently is) impossible to share 'best-practice' if we can't talk about it - which leads people to do really inconsiderate things like jump in front of moving vehicles, with no thought for the feelings of others or the effects it might have on them, e.g. the driver of said vehicle, who didn't choose to get involved.

What I was trying to do, poorly it seems, was point out that you weren't just talking about suicide, you were telling someone that their mere presence on this earth was enough to make you want to kill yourself. That's not a discussion, that's just an insult!

I have no insight into your life whatsoever. I have no idea what you have or haven't tried. I would just say though that, from a professional point of view, no one patient is 'more important' than another, and, while that may be your perception of the situation, that's unlikely to be the reality. Depression makes us think strange things, things that are, on reflection from a 'happier' place, simply not true. As someone who has been there all I can suggest is that you trust me on this.

I don't see you as a problem. I see some of your behaviours as problematic. There's a world of difference!

Life isn't about cost and / or efficiency. Neither should death be!

That said, when I choose to go: fuck the legality! And, to a degree, I have considered both the cost, efficiency, and effectiveness of my chosen method. However, I've also considered the effect my death, and the manner and nature of it, would have on others (the only thing that stopped my taking a long drop ~25 years ago), as well as any 'discomfort' or pain that I might experience during the process.

Finally, as it happens, I have day-dreamed about starting a chain of "Departure Clinics": what rules / conditions for use I would want to impose; what kind of atmosphere I'd want to foster; what method they would use; and so on. Cost-effective - debateable, because there's a lot of factors to consider, and a lot of unknowns. Efficient - absolutely. But, and I think this is a key question, this is a solution to what, exactly? It's not a solution for depression; it's not a solution for society's ills; it's not a solution for a bad break-up; it's not a solution for unpopular people.

So, what are we trying to solve here?

Are you sure that it's the fact you respond as opposed to the content of your responses. I mean, seriously, let's take just one example from above: "Why not legalize suicide, since living around people like you makes me not want to live?"

What possesses you to think that people 'want' to be treated / spoken to like that, or that people will tolerate being treated / spoken to like that? If anyone spoke to people like this in real life they would quickly be ostracised. Why would you think that an online community should be different?

I'd suggest you start by accepting responsibility for your words and actions, rather than blaming others. And, honestly, you should probably seek professional help for your (current) mental health crisis.

This is not really the place to get it...

It's fair to say, hard science is complicated. Understanding what that 'science' then tells us is (apparently) harder still. Let's examine what is actually being talked about in those links, one at a time...

The first link, where you're getting your 2030 date from, is talking about solar cycles, specifically the 'travelling' magnetic waves that the sun generates. To refer to the consequences of the processes they're talking about as "an ice age" whilst omitting the qualifier "mini" from in front is to misrepresent both the headline and the article. After all, there's a substantial difference between a 20 to 30 year long 'cold snap' and a 10,000 year long, kilometers deep, glacial period. However, that's not the worst of it - and your portion of the blame here only goes as far as, presumably, an uncritical recounting of a terrible piece of 'journalism'. First up, the words "ice age" do not even appear in the paper that link refers to. Secondly, I can't figure out where the article gets the line "...causing reduction in solar activity by as much as 60 percent" from. You don't even need to read the entire 4 pages of the paper, it's in the abstract: "...will lead to a reduction of solar irradiance by about 0.22% from the modern level and a decrease of the average terrestrial temperature by about 1.0C"

Now, I'll be honest, I hadn't come across their paper before, so I'm glad you linked to a newsie about it. Thanks! If I wanted to criticise it, however, I might question whether their model has been 'over-fitted' to historical data, meaning that its predictive power is ... unreliable and could be wildly wrong. Given the failure in error detection in the first line of the abstract "The recent progress with understanding a role of the solar background magnetic field in defining solar (^ sic) and with quantifying the observed magnitudes of magnetic field at different times activity (sic) enable reliable long-term prediction of solar activity on a millennium timescale" it's probably not an unfair concern either, even if mathematical ability and proficiency in English are not directly related.

That said, even if their paper is accurate, and their predictions correct, the actual scientist hasn't predicted an ice age, mini or otherwise, starting in 2030.

The moral of this story is: don't swallow hyperbole whole. It will disagree with you and others. And, there really are some exceedingly bad science journalists out there.

The second link is discussing the vagaries of Earth's orbit around the sun, its eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. On that page it states: "If these patterns hold true, the next ice age could arrive within 11,000 years".

Phew! I can stop clenching / holding my breath...

The last link is referring to a paper discussing a rather complex system of co-factors / feedbacks in the oceans' carbon cycle. It's worth pointing out that the authors themselves note that "The computational challenge is simulating all these processes on the ~100-thousand-year timescale relevant to Earth’s thermostats". Or, in layman's speak, "there's a lot that could go wrong, and a lot of time in which they could too: while we think our results are interesting the number and nature of the uncertainties render our conclusions speculative at best."

But, again, even if everything they've modelled is correct, even if their conclusions are valid, that fact that, on our current trajectory "This would paradoxically lead Earth to a premature deep freeze hundreds of thousands of years in the future" doesn't particularly concern me, or my children, or their children, or... You get my point.

You'll also have noticed, no doubt, a certain contradiction between link 2's "11,000 years" and link 3's "premature 100,000+ years". They can't both be true, because if the first happens the conditions for the second disappear, while if the second happens the first clearly didn't.

Now, personally I think this is, in a sense, science at its best. Hypothesis, test, publish, then have someone else come along and pick holes in it. I have no issues with the uncertainty though, especially not on a timescale of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. I appreciate that not everyone is as comfortable with it. It would help if people were more comfortable analysing what they read though, rather than knee-jerking "OMG someone somewhere said we're going to all freeze to death in 30 years".

No, they didn't!

(Well, someone, somewhere, probably did, but they're not someone we should be paying too much mind to...)

I think I saw a documentary about this a while back...