Yes

It just so happens that I'm writing a paper on Equatorial Guinea and upon being freed from Spanish rule, some ass declared himself president for life and about 10 years later another ass took over in a coup and guess what replaced the dictator? It was an authoritarian government lead by the ass that took over as a "president" (only the rich and loyal get to vote, not the poors). Equatorial Guinea is one of the largest oil producers in Sub-Saharan Africa and all the money goes to the "president" and his family. Only half the people have access to clean drinking water. It's rated one of the worst countries for freedom, getting a 5 out of 100. For reference, Afghanistan got a 6 out of 100 and North Korea got a 3 out of 100. See also: https://freedomhouse.org/count...

This is actually the same island that they tried to get a deal with Britain to store toxic waste on. The only reason it didn't go through is because Britain's got upset and their government suddenly decided against it. However, the people on the island were merely going to be casualties when the waste invariably leaked into the streams, aquifers, and ocean.

I honestly do not know why they expected anything different from this guy. He basically thinks they are ants to be stepped on.

While this is good, the concessions missed the mark because it doesn't enforce any API stability or mandate that the public API be the one that Microsoft uses. As a result, Microsoft's pledge has been made entirely in bad faith. Some things they will likely do is put out a half-assed public API that is technically compatible but keeps out the "Microsoft Exclusive" features that make it useful. Furthermore, they may "update" the API and break everyone's client that isn't use the Microsoft API every six months.

Let's hope this EU commission roasts them when they (invariably) act in bad faith.

This is incorrect. The passengers on a spaceship traveling at relativistic velocity will experience time differently. From inside the spaceship, it will seem like everything outside is speeding up but time is relative and compared to the outside, they are slowing down. Therefore, space travel under constant acceleration could enable someone to travel beyond the observable universe in a human lifetime while (depending on your rate of acceleration) billions of years have passed outside the spaceship.

Naturally, an amazing energy source to provide the thrust will be required. Antimatter/matter reactions look like a possible method for at least some distances. I'm not saying it's a solved problem, I'm saying it's not impossible to accomplish in a human lifetime.

While it may seem foolish to bother observing far away planets like this due to our lack of ability to reach them, one should remember that humanity has always had seemingly unobtainable goals that we have always dreamed of reaching. Despite the distant nature of our goals, things like this inspire us to expand our capabilities and strive to "reach for the stars".

Despite being mere fantasy for millennia, humanity has made amazing progress to reaching the goals of humanity which seem to be fundamental to human nature as they occur in stories from every culture and society: immortality, building an artificial person, traveling to alien lands. We have made progress toward these goals: our understanding of biology is improving, our technology has progressed to the point where AGI isn't an impossibility, and we've made it to the Moon and sent probes to the edge of our star system.

Humanity will not reach the new planets we find in our lifetimes (we're still working on Mars!) but unless humans are drastically altered or go extinct, we will continue to chip away at "the impossible" until we've actually managed to accomplished it.

Oh boy, do I have GREAT news for you!: Apollo 11: the first moon landing

You comment indicates that you don't understand what a trend is but the reality is that you're merely an ass, unable to cope with the gravity of the situation

"Tobacco companies aren't to blame for all the cancer deaths, it's people that smoke the very cigarettes they make!" -- this is the same argument.

Choosing the side of Big Tobacco is a fool's move.

"Tobacco companies aren't to blame for all the cancer deaths, it's the smokers!" -- this is the same argument.

You reap what you sow.

"Tobacco companies aren't to blame for all the cancer deaths, it's the smokers!" <-- this is the same argument.

Please, take your head out of your ass.

I'm glad you acknowledge that it's entirely possible. However, the cart does not go before the horse.

I listed exactly what you need to look up. Do you expect to be spoon fed as well?

The point is to reduce emissions as much as possible. This isn't an all or nothing proposition. To that end, it doesn't matter if BEVs are all charged on 100% coal, the result is still less pollution than ICEVs. You may find it hard to believe but it was right here on Slashdot. As long as we switch to BEV then the amount of pollution they generate can always be reduced by replacing polluting electrical generation. BEVs simply pollute less and that's the idea, to pollute less. There is no reason that we must solve the entire problem all at once when it can be broken down into smaller pieces.

You clearly need to learn that perfect is the enemy of good.

Yes. This is why they made the law with a transitional period built in? The point of that period is that companies can build out what is lacking until ICEVs can be eliminated.

As demand ramps up, new suppliers start building and supplying. Welcome to Markets 101.

Yes. EVs are typically charged slowly overnight when the electrical grid has the minimum amount of demand.

You need to do some research on:
1. How many mines are in the process of opening.
2. How existing mining operations are expanding.
3. How the solid-state lithium-ion batteries reduce the number of batteries required because they weigh less.
4. How alternative chemistries like sulfur-ion batteries are being developed.

You are missing a lot of information about what we are doing to address the very things you claim are preventing electrification. You seem to only be looking at part of the picture.

We have a robust legal system which can easily make circumventing the pricing an act of fraud.

A carbon tax would allow imported items to be taxed based on their point of origin. Naturally, people will try to cheat this system, so enforcement would be crucial.

However, we could also make exemptions for certain things deemed vital. We do it all the time for stuff.

Or you could combine the two ideas and make it so the higher amounts of energy are only billed higher if they are fossil-fuel based. Then make it so that residents get 100% priority before businesses and smaller businesses before large ones. This would push large businesses to increase the mount of green energy production or build their own. Either way is a win for people and would eliminate greenwashing for electricity.

Except people don't want that, only AI companies want that. Specifically, they want a "you didn't say, so we don't have to comply" excuse that will allow them to violate copyright.

No normal website is going to agree to this bullshit.