I get that that wasn't a rule when we grew up, but how else do you distinguish Ms from M's? (Not to be confused with I's, as in "I's going to the stores")

Excellent! Vanquish the letters.

A job's a job.

There's no reason to tax more than the cost and overhead of doing the appropriate environmental remediation to bring the net harm to zero. Then do the remediation, of course.

From a biological perspective I feel like epoxy impregnated fiberglass should have children kind of like polycarbonate or PEEK. Are they recyclable?

(/immature humor)

I agree. The functions provided by this bed do not require internet connectivity AT ALL, let alone some ridiculous cloud based architecture. $5000 is enough to include a $200 miniPC to monitor temp and positional sensors.

I think like most others who replied, you missed half of my point.

They don't need to. Here's the scenario (though it requires important details to be ironed out). Say the world estimates carbon capture to equal the current carbon output would cost 4 trillion dollars. And if we burn less, it will cost less. So you simulate a higher tax to find the lowest rate such that the tax revenue equals the cost of carbon capture. Done. If you want the simple version, you can pretend demand is inelastic as you implied, and calculate the needed tax amount without thinking about how usage will change.

If you want a more realistic and complex version, you'll need to find an economist.

You missed my point about incentives. How do you get the EV out front that can handle power spiked? By making it the best option, not by bombing the power plants. You know economics works better when everyone acts in their enlightened self interest than when edicts try to force changes. Make fossil fuels brutally expensive and put the money toward climate cooling. Then people and societies will figure out how to use less carbon on their own.

I think we disagree about the edge cases and the implemention. I think there will always be cases for dirty fuel, that mandating closure of power plants will take too long (centuries if you consider the whole world). So I think that kind of "solution" is the same as doing nothing.

I think you missed the second part of my point. The sledgehammer is MONEY. If you accurately assess the cost of carbon remediation and price that in as a tax on dirty energy, you've immediately halted the crisis. On the other hand, if you try to "centrally plan" your way out of this, the likely result is that you'll stop some of the emissions with no remediation to balance the rest of them.

No, we don't need to throw away the value of dirty power. What we need to do is stop treating it like it's cheap, because it's not. It should cost a lot more and that money should go to climate remediation. It should cost so much that this money can actually be used to cancel its harm.

Why? Because dirty power has value. Dirty power can (even on a cloudy day) handle a spike in air conditioners turning on in the evening after work. Dirty power can heat houses at night when there isn't wind. However this should be expensive. It should hurt a little bit. That pain can cause people to reduce dirty power usage, for example by staggering their air conditioning schedule, prioritizing better home insulation, or by wearing more temperature-appropriate clothing in the home like we do in places with extreme temperatures. It would drive public demand for excellent quality public transit--the kind you don't hate using. It would drive investment in power storage. And again, a large tax earmarked for climate remediation would do more for carbon capture or R&D than the current investments.

This should be implemented globally because it's a global problem.

At which point it will hallucinate that every building is a McDonald's only to get you murdered by a drug cartel gang.

Lying to you to give you that terrible restaurant recommendation. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2510.06105 is a white paper mathematically proving that LLMs will lie.

I have said this all along- most of AI is GIGO- Garbage in, Garbage out. LLMs were trained on the largest garbage producer in our society today, Web 2.0. Nothing was done to curate the input, so the output is garbage.

I don't often reveal my religion, but https://magisterium.com/ is an example of what LLMs look like when they HAVE curated training. This LLM is very limited. It can't answer any question that the Roman Catholic Church hasn't considered in the last 300 years or so. They're still adding documents to it carefully, but I asked it about a document published a mere 500 years ago and it wasn't in the database, but instead of making something up like most LLMs will do, it kindly responded that the document wasn't in the database. It also, unlike most AI, can produce bibliographies.