Lots of inaccuracies here.

Firstly it takes far longer to fill a hydrogen car than a gas car due to the careful rate control needed to fill the tank. If you have appropriate cooling and heating systems to maximise density while filling while also preventing the handle from freezing in place it still takes you >6min to fill a car.

Filling time for hydrogen cars is 3 minutes per industry standard. Also, the handle would not freeze in place, because hydrogen heats up when expanding (reverse Joule-Thomson effect): if anything it would warm up. And that happens only for specific pressure ranges (mostly from very high to almost empty tank).

On top of that hydrogen refueling stations do not store hydrogen at bulk pressures required for vehicles since having a large 700bar tank is hugely expensive and dangerous, instead bulk hydrogen is stored at a lower pressure and compressed before being put into small temporary storage and loaded into your car.

It's more complicated than that. There are often multiple tanks at different pressure, and they will be used sequentially to maximise efficiency. First the one with lowest pressure, then top-up with the higher-pressure tank. Promptness of refilling the high-pressure top-up tank is only related to compressor capacity, and this is easily upgraded when customer base increases; hydrogen compressors are off-the-shelf technology.

Also: tanks are not especially dangerous, the tricky parts are usually valves and flanges. Tanks are fairly standardised and are safe ex works; flanges are installed on site and that's where there is potential for errors to creep in. That's why a standing recommendation is to use hydrogen pipes that are "as small as you can get away with" for high-pressure lines.

... You do realise that Toyota has already developed this concept?

I am a researcher on hydrogen technologies at an independent institute and I have led EU projects for about 30 million euros, so I can claim I have some inside knowledge of the industry.

Stellantis never had any significant activity in hydrogen, so they are not really giving up anything. Of all the brands of the Stellantis group I have never met one at the meetings of the EU's Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Joint Undertaking; the only one that was ever active was FIAT, not very convincingly and very long ago: they bailed from the H2moves project more than 10 years ago, never heard from them since.

Other companies have much better developed hydrogen programs: BMW, Daimler, Volvo, each with its ups and downs. Volkswagen and their controlled Scania have a schizophrenic relationship to hydrogen since a previous CEO, Diess, was very much against, but a lot of engineers were in favour. Outside the EU it is of course Toyota and Hyundai that lead worldwide.

In any case, it has been clear for years that it is a lot easier to electrify cars for personal use with batteries, and hydrogen FCs have repositioned themselves for the heavy-duty market (trucks, trains, ships). Stellantis does not have any significant activity in this sector, so it makes sense for them to focus what little resources they have on batteries. Of course, if they had any competence in batteries, since they suck at them too.

I have been an EV driver for about 10 years (Nissan Leaf and Tesla M3). What Brembo is not commenting on is how the usage pattern of brake discs of EVs (including hybrids with enough battery) is radically different from ICE vehicles.

ICE vehicles use their brakes continually, every time they slow down. EVs regenerate the energy instead to refill the battery, that's why several models can be driven with a single pedal (raising the foot will slow down the car). Brakes in EVs tend to be used mostly for stationing (which does not wear the pads) and emergency braking or other special cases (very steep downhill, battery 100% full and few others). This means that particulate emission from EV brakes is already negligible.

This also means that, while ICE brakes wear regularly, EV brakes wear so slowly that they sometime rust instead, resulting in lower performance when an emergency occurs and they are suddenly needed. Here in Norway, automobile clubs and insurance companies actually recommend EV drivers to speed and brake hard once in a while to maintain brake pads efficiency.

So I would be more impressed if Brembo had produced a more rust-resistant brake pad that maintains performance even after being subject to salt and other corrosive conditions for weeks, because I never remember to do that hard brake thing (which implies finding a place where you can do it safely). That would be a brake pad that lasts a lot longer, possibly the entire life of the vehicle.

This looks like an alarming extension of copyright overreach if such restrictions are applied to AI. AI reads content (which may be copyrighted, as this post you are reading is, as nearly everything on the Internet is) and learns from it, and that's how it can process a book and provide a summary within a few minutes.

If this were an infringement of copyright, basically any form of human learning would also be. Just reviewing a book, a game, anything copyrighted could be constructed as infringement and prosecuted. Parodies, tributes, quotations. Imagine Leni Riefenstahl suing George Lucas for the final scene of the original Star Wars.

If an AI generates text that is substantially a copy of a copyrighted training input, that's a copyright breach; but AIs can be trained to avoid this, just like people can - learn the concept, avoid copying the form.

The report of the Copyright Office contains the following statement on page 26:

The steps required to produce a training dataset containing copyrighted works clearly implicate the right of reproduction. Developers make multiple copies of works by downloading them; transferring them across storage mediums; converting them to different formats; and creating modified versions or including them in filtered subsets. In many cases, the first step is downloading data from publicly available locations, but whatever the source, copies are made—often repeatedly.

That's the same way any browser operates. For that sake, a lot of browsers pre-download links on a page, so that copies are made locally before any action is taken by the user. Proxy servers also make local copies of often-requested files. If this is infringement, anyone who ever accessed the Internet is a criminal. What if you move a legally-owned copyrighted file from one hard disk partition to another? That would technically require creating a copy.

In practice, the line is drawn when you start distributing (other people's) copyrighted works, which also is the only enforceable one. That is what should be required of AI engines.

Obviously the reason is another: owners of copyrighted work do not want AI to learn their concepts and re-express them (which has always been legal for humans), because their customers will find it easier to ask the AI rather than pay/read the original documents themselves, busting their business model.

Please, he is the reincarnation of Crassus. Bad guy of Spartacus fame, became filthy rich speculating on real estate by highly corrupt means, was eventually killed off the first time he led an army into battle against a real enemy, and executed by pouring molten gold in his throat (likely inspiration for Viserys Targaryen).

I watched the "Project Turntable" video, and that is unbelievably cool.

To work, the AI has to recognize what the drawing represents, figure out how to reverse-transform the 2D representation into a 3D object, and work out what the hidden parts should look like. It's amazing.

It's only a short step between this and working out walk cycles, matching mouth movements to dialogue, adding facial expressions, etc.

This will revolutionize 2D animation.

This is the old vehicle-to-grid (V2G) concept that has been studied several times; there are actually already some 2-way connectors like ChaDeMo.

Of course this availability of battery power should be compensated somehow, and I can imagine a catchy program like "1 kWh free for every hour you make your car battery available". That would make car charging essentially free for almost anyone, which is not that far-fetched considering how badly California's grid needs flexibility.

However, this is done at the expense of battery lifetime. Several people have already indicated that studies have proven most EV batteries will survive the vehicle they are installed in, but that's because they are normally slow-charged at night and only discharged when used. If they are charged and discharged several times a day, this lifetime will plummet rapidly. When charging an EV battery, you only see the electricity price, but the depreciation of the battery is often much larger (depending on temperature, charging rate, current state of charge and of course enegy & battery prices).

Most EV owners (including myself!) have a very faint feeling for this depreciation when charging their car, so they may be willing to participate to such a scheme. However, if this scheme was profitable overall - why wouldn't utilities just buy their own batteries?

ALL materials are "technically capable" of being recycled, no exception. Even nuclear waste can in theory be put together to U-235, given a particle accelerator and enough energy.

The definition should be: can be recycled at a cost inferior to new production. If it can't, it's not going to be recycled, and for all relevant intents and purposes it's not recyclable.

How to implement: manufacturers claiming their products are recyclable must be willing to take them back, and demonstrate ability to recycle these materials themselves (no subcontracting, dumping, shipping to south-east Asia or other shenanigans). Can't do that? Then it's not recyclable.

It seems most people here are reeling at the social and moral implications of having a relationship with an inanimate algorithm. I am more worried about the insane private data mining potential here: suppose a stressed, lonely bureaucrat with security clearance starts a relationship with an AI, and talks about private matters they would prefer remained private: these personal secrets are a gold mine to leverage people into espionage.

Unless your AI significant one is running on your own iron and is insulated from the Internet, it is most likely a spy - either for governments or corporations.

This is nothing new: in the days after WW2, when supply of German men in marrying age was short, East Germany's Stasi successfully planted lots of "Romeo agents" by seducing secretaries of high-ranking politicians. Only, these digital Romeos and Juliets can be deployed to entire populations instead of targeted to specific individuals, and as algorithm they have absolute loyalty to their master, whereas Romeo agents sometimes became truly involved with their targets and sided with them.

Aside from the absurdity of investing in nuclear from an economic standpoint, given all the foul-ups of Olkiluoto, Flamanville, Hinkley Point C, NuScale etc. for a country that does not have income to squander, instead of simply installing solar (load following can be realised with geothermal and hydro, which Kenya has already a lot of)...

Will Kenya also have its uranium enrichment facilities? The centrifuges are the same as those used for weapons-grade uranium, and that's why no one believed Iran was pursuing peaceful nuclear. Kenya is not exactly Switzerland, while more stable than other African countries.

Why do you think a gun-type bomb won't work with a larger amount of lower-enrichment uranium?

Because U238 gobbles up fast neutrons a lot better than U235, and unless you remove most of it, the average 2,5 neutrons from each U235 fission will be mostly absorbed by U238 instead of starting another fission. Having more mass will simply mean you have more U238 as well.

If they believe that they're far more stupid than evil. At the 1st hint they would try to use nukes, America would turn their deserts to glass.

North Korea has nukes, and they brag about it, specifically about their ability to target the US with them. Haven't seen much nuking from the US, not even threats (beyond 45 saying he had a bigger nuclear button than Kim). Same goes for Pakistan, a nuclear power that established the Taliban and gave refuge to Bin Laden.

It's quite obvious the US does not disturb hostile regimes with nukes. It is fully rational for the scum currently in power in Iran to develop nukes as a form of insurance. They see very well what happens in their neighbourhood when countries with exploitable resources cannot scare off the US military.

Capacitors store electric energy physically (in electric fields) and have far lower energy density and far higher costs than batteries, which store energy chemically.

Capacitors can be used for some niche operations, like storing braking energy in trucks, but last time I looked the prices were in the range of 10,000 USD/kWh. Their main advantage is they can discharge very fast, so if you need a little energy but in a very short time they can be useful.

They have never been, and will likely never be, a serious contender in energy storage. 19x increased storage density is not going to help, even before we consider whether this invention can be mass-produced and what its price would be.

That's not to say this is a small achievement, there are certainly plenty of uses e.g. in power electronics for this technology. But calling it "batteries" and dog-whistling people in thinking this is going to make it in their EV battery is disingenuous.

It could actually be a good way to deal with compulsive smartphone use.