What do we all want? A cheap efficient compact electric car. What did we get? A "Cybercab" that won't see the light of day for at least 3 years, and maybe never. Same with the "Robovan," which Musk strangely and repeatedly pronounced, "Rubavin." His humanoid robots still seem a decade behind the stuff from Boston Dynamics and other dedicated robot companies. Also, why was all this shown to us in the dark? Does Elon have something to hide? Anyone else feel this event demonstrated a company going nowhere?

Can somebody editing the headline?

If they are starting off with wood chips and rice husks, by definition those are already captured carbon. Just leave it as is. It's captured already. The whole concept is nonsense. They are creating even more atmospheric carbon by burning oil or natural gas in order to make the lego bricks so it's worse than just leaving the chips and husks alone.

If you read the actual lawsuit to the end you discover that the authors are asking for damages of $150,000 per work copied. In the grand scheme of things, for the Microsofts, Alphabets and Metas of the world, this is just a rounding error in their quarterly revenues. So maybe the authors will get their payout after all. I'm wondering about all the non-fiction out there, and especially places like the Wayback Machine, which has obviously been scraped by AI trainers.

You are externalizing the multi trillion dollar costs of CO2 harm to the environment which you are causing by driving your ICE car forever.

FreeBSD apparently, according to Jordan Hubbard. https://www.textise.net/showTe...

Here's something about electric cars that most people don't think about. Compared to gasoline, you can find electricity everywhere. With gasoline there are only 4 or 5 companies that provide it. Your car will take a charge from any normal electrical outlet anywhere. It might take a while, but your car is sitting idle most of the time, so that doesn't really matter. With gasoline you have to go looking for gas stations which are rare compared to electrical outlets. Electricity is therefore more democratic since virtually everyone already has easy access to it at home or at work. You don't hear people talking about this as much as you would expect, and the oil companies for sure don't want you to realize this. You can even make your own electricity pretty easily with a modest investment in a windmill or solar panels. Try making your own gasoline.

From the Wikipedia link above, "He" is Thomas Midgley Jr. the inventor of tetra-ethyl lead as well as Freon, both of which are very harmful and both of which were eventually banned. But here's the tremendous irony: "In 1940, at the age of 51, Midgley contracted poliomyelitis, which left him severely disabled. He devised an elaborate system of ropes and pulleys to lift himself out of bed. In 1944, he became entangled in the device and died of strangulation.[17][18][19]"

Yes. Yours is the best answer of all. It took a billion years for life to evolve here on Earth **to satisfy Earth conditions** and maybe humans are the most advanced version of such life (though that is also debatable). There's no chance of survival on Mars. The whole idea of leaving this planet is misguided. Keep in mind that the martian atmosphere is something like 95% CO2 and we on Earth are freaking out about our atmospheric CO2 concentration changing by from 360 parts per million to 400 parts per million. That is: C02 on earth is 0.04% of our atmosphere compared to 95% on Mars. The difference is huge! How is this comparable to any challenge that Magellan had? My position is: if people want to go live in a "New World", go settle Antarctica. Lots of space. Plenty of water, oxygen, gravity, etc. Much easier to get to. It will be more than enough of a challenge.

If it's like other questions it *will* be up for a couple of months.

If you expand your "box" and consider a car as a moving computer or piece of consumer electronics, well, there's Tesla. Is there anyone out there pushing the technological envelope more than Elon Musk? He's WAY AHEAD of anyone else when it comes to the future of cars, and transportation in general. 1. Road and driving Data collection. They have more driving data from 6 or 8 cameras and radar sensors on about half a million cars. More than anyone in the world by about 2 orders of magnitude. 2. AI and neural nets. They arguably have better and more mature self driving hardware and software than anyone else. 3. Battery management systems. Who is better? And this is a SUPER important area for future technological development at all scales. 4. Battery manufacture and development. Recent acquisition of Maxwell technology (dry battery, super capacitors, etc.). Also proof of concept of huge battery installations in Australia and Hawaii to replace fossil fuel peak load generator systems. I'm sure others can add more. Tesla would seem to be the biggest consumer electronics competitor of all, and they are literally changing the way we get around.

Thanks for the link to the wikipedia article. However according to wikipedia it's still all based on reviews of the literature which injects some speculation, then it is weighted (more speculation), then finally indexed (even more guessing) so this report is based on A LOT of guessing and meta data and virtually ZERO actual measuring of anything. To re-iterate, maybe it's because I live in Canada, but I've experienced it in Japan, too: if you go for a walk in the wild it is incredible to observe the amount of animal life all around you. Everyone should do this more often so as to feel less horrible about the state of the world. Humans are having an impact for sure, but this is a REALLY big planet and there's room for a lot of life. I do feel that we humans need to make more of an effort to live together at peace with all this other life, and respect it more, but I don't think we need to get all bent out of shape over it. There's a lot of unnecessary FUD on this topic.

If you go to the original article in the Guardian, you then have to click on a link to the World Wildlife Fund which then links to a report from the Zoological Society of London https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/d... which is the ACTUAL study that all this is based on. If you read it you find there is no actual research that definitively counts any species or animals so everything about this is pure speculation. There has been no actual observed decrease. The headline is totally misleading. The actual report simply speculates that there will be decreases due to human behaviour. This is not news. This is not even science. It's simply fear mongering and speculation. In fact if you take the time to read the report it even shows that in some cases human impact is now decreasing year by year, e.g. in world fishing catches. People: please read the source of these stories before making wild comments about statements that are not even based on observable facts. Or better yet: get off your chair and walk into any woods or get out on the sea near you and notice the vast array of life that surrounds you. It's totally astounding. This article is not science. It is hubris. It is humans thinking they are so powerful and wonderful that they can kill every other living thing on the planet. This is totally and completely false. We are just animals like all the rest. Here for a short time and then gone. So read the source and get a grip.