At least this god will actually exist.

Whoops, hit post to soon: the "The UK government just made this up out of thin air" or something...

I love how all the armchair scientists come out when stuff like this is mentioned. "What's going to keep it from just floating back out?", "It's probably going to use more energy and create more CO2 than it's going to store"... as if no one has ever had that thought yet... and the UK government just made.

There are _thousands_ of scientists all over the world studying every aspect of this (and every other scientifically informed climate change action) for MANY years. The published results from those scientists are used in policy making. That policy making takes _years_ and is hotly debated on all sides before something like this makes its way through.

On CO2 sequestration, it's been studied and re-studied and re-analyzed for over 20 years now. There is a huge body of published research on every aspect (including the "net" energy use and CO2 net balance) this is a good overview that cites tons of other papers you can go read on it: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

PLEASE don't assume that you can "use your intuition" on these extremely complex issues.

Thank you for this post. As a (nuclear) scientist it drives me crazy that people who are not part of the scientific publishing ecosystem purport to know how it works... and make claims like "intimidation" against publishing something against currently accepted theories.

Many... MANY... of the papers that go to journals these days are directly trying to refute accepted theories. Like you said, if you get it right you can become famous overnight. There is no shortage of people that are trying in every field (and definitely climate-related fields). However, the burden for these papers is that there must be factual, evidential, proof of what you are claiming.

Scientists _love_ to prove each other wrong! It's the way science works. That we haven't had any journal articles factually refuting human-caused warming in reputable journals is _proof_ itself that the current theory is correct. I can guarantee you that it's not for lack of submissions - it's just that those submissions don't withstand peer review due to not having evidence.

And anyone that thinks "peer review" means "I don't like what you're saying" does not know what they're talking about. Technical peer review is a very difficult thing to do, you have to have just as much evidence for what you are saying in your review. In fact, in my experience, I spend WAY more time writing negative reviews that positive reviews. A positive review will just get a few critiques and suggestions. A negative review turns into an entire treatise on the subject with many citations to back up my claims.

Peer review is not the wild west - and there are many stopgaps. If a reviewer doesn't properly justify their review the editor will toss it and find another reviewer.

Ok - I'm droning on now. It was just refreshing to see someone else on Slashdot that actually understand how science works!

This is why Iâ(TM)m not going to have shareholders. Iâ(TM)m currently setting up a new service (founded the company in January)⦠and Iâ(TM)m going to price it hella cheap because I donâ(TM)t need to make millions right away⦠but Iâ(TM)m going to keep the company small and Iâ(TM)ll be profitable within this first year with a small number of users. I can just hang out and let revenue/profit grow at a reasonable pace. No need to try to play pricing games.

Maybe Iâ(TM)m misunderstanding you⦠but PWAs work fine on Apple devices. Have since the beginning of the iPhone - in fact, that was the ONLY kind of app that worked on the original iPhone. You can âoeinstallâ them by going to Share->Add To Homescreen

can we please get rid of the damn cookie popups? Or have a global way to accept them? I seriously don't give a damn, and they are just a nuisance. I wish there was a flag I could set in my browser that just accepts all of them... so I can get back to using the web.

This is an incredibly odd viewpoint. I'm over 40 and have been doing massively-parallel programming (modeling and simulation on supercomputers) in C++ for the last 2 decades... hardcore, low-level programming.

Yet... Just three months ago I started writing a new web/phone app in my spare time using Javascript/Nodejs/React/MUI. Not only was it challenging - it was also fun. Yes, you get to use a ton of libraries... but that just allows you to think at an even higher level of how to deploy these libraries and get them to interact efficiently. Despite all the libraries, I've still written thousands of lines of code.

What has changed is the time to market. Like I said, I've been working by myself for 3 months in my spare time and now am nearly ready to ship my first Beta. I already registered my company and set up all the interactions between my site and banks etc. and plan to start accepting payments within the next 6 months (after a decent Beta phase).

Does that mean it's "easy" - hell no. It's complicated as hell... but if you are able to figure it all out you can get a hell of an acceleration. Does it mean that less programmers are needed? Hell no. There's a million things to do. I'm already thinking about the next app/website I want to make... I've got a list of ~10 or so. None of them are "groundbreaking" but some of them will at least yield a positive net.

True programmers will always win out over people who just look at Stack Overflow and copy/paste code. Those people's inefficiencies will never make them as effective: regardless of how many libraries they use. A real programmer can stand on the shoulders of all of these libraries/giants and see _more_ - more possibilities, better algorithms, better applications. For me - it's an exciting time to be a programmer!

Yeah - that one. They make some damn fine chargers and cables!

One example for me: chargers and charging cables. You _can_ buy cheap junk on Amazon... but you can also buy Anker, TwelveSouth, and Mophie. I've also found UGreen to be high quality as well.

When I'm buying stuff on Amazon - I don't just randomly search for "phone charger"... I put in "Anker phone charger" and get brought right to the good stuff. Then you double-check that you're buying it from Amazon or the "Anker Store" on Amazon and you're good to go.

I figure that most people have their ways of weeding through the crap... or they were just looking for crap anyway so it doesn't matter.

This is still Git. They can't change the source code without it being glaringly obvious. Each modification to the source code is cryptographically unique and cannot be modified without Git instantly flagging it the next time a developer pulls the repo.