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

The new Freenet is written in Rust.

lol - same thing with pilots ;)

Thank you!

You're very welcome :)

When the new Freenet is up and running, I think it will be the first system of any kind that could host something like wikipedia, not just the data but the wiki CMS system it's built on. An editable wikipedia, entirely decentralized and very scalable.

I think when the history of the last decade is written, it will be about - in part - the terrible social damage caused by opaque and biased social media algorithms manipulating the public discourse.

Locutus is primarily designed for decentralization, not anonymity - which will make it less suited to IP theft than various other technologies that are already pervasive, the same is true of a lot of the other "people you don't want to be your early adopters" that you mention. It's definitely a risk for systems like Freenet, but it's a manageable risk.

Most of the negative comments so far are from people who I doubt spent 20 seconds looking at our site, so I hope they don't color your judgement. Read through our user manual and form your own opinion.

Once there are viable alternatives on Freenet we'll use them.

I think the time is right, which is exactly why I'm doing what I'm doing :)

Totally agree about the importance of naming, and Freenet has the advantage of literally describing what we're building - a free network.