Trying to disprove something involves actual experiments which can give evidence for or against a theory.

Each nozzle is used by a single person for a few minutes, while a charging station needs to be used for a much longer time. This is an apples to oranges comparison, typical for ideology-motivated messages.

You claim that wind and solar are hard at load following, why? I believe it's the reverse. Want to reduce power from wind? Just brake some turbines, done. Want to reduce power from solar? Just turn off some inverters or have them operate at reduced power, done. I believe the reasons for the current situation are political, not technical.

Consider that the person asking for money would not be the one who got your trash, but completely different neighbor with a huge villa, and the money you pay would not be used for cleaning the trash, but for making the villa even bigger.

Evidence based reasoning is what the world needs more. Ideologies are nothing more than secular religions, they have some grain of truth within them but they fail, sometimes spectacularly, if applied overzealously without reason.

Before Google Translate, there was Babelfish, which existed from 1997. It wasn't perfect, but it was useful.

A fun way to generate nonsensical sentences was to take some block of text, and iteratively translate it using Babelfish to different languages, and then back to the original one.

This is nonsense. We are our brains. Our brain made the choice = we made the choice. As simple as that. The perception of the choices is a different matter entriely; it's just an implementation detail of a self-aware, thinking machine.

No it isn't. Astronomers use image stacking. If you take multiple images, you can just reject outlier pixels, which completely removes Starlink trails from the images. See e.g. https://live.staticflickr.com/...

> We belong dead. The sooner, the better.

If you truly believe this, start with yourself, the sooner, the better. If not, STFU, let people live and try all those futile non-solutions, as it's obviously better than the alternative.

Good languages tend to accumulate communities. If it turns out to be useful, it will have a community sooner than you think.

And yet it does things we would consider impossible just a few years ago.

Leaf shutter placed in the right position in the lens acts mostly as a diaphragm, so that for the short time it opens and closes, it basically just reduces the amount of light falling on the film (and changes the DoF, which - as this happens together with the light reduction - will not be very noticeable on the photo). Whereas, if placed in the position of the roller blind shutter, the opening and closing of the shutter has the potential to introduce vignetting, as the shutter blocks the light from falling on certain parts of film. So I don't think it's just historical.

You are wrong.

First, she published a lot and is still publishing, so she is certainly doing.

Second, it's a good tradition in academia that the people doing research are also teaching. This makes them better at communicating, as they constantly need to explain complex ideas to people which weren't exposed to them earlier.

Not really. If you read the fine project README, you would know that:

[Brow.sh] runs slower and requires more resources than Carbonyl. 50x more CPU power is needed for the same content in average, that's because Carbonyl does not downscale or copy the window framebuffer, it natively renders to the terminal resolution.

If you didn't notice, commercial planes are fly-by-wire now. In Airbus specifically, the computers have full control and without them, the pilots basically can do nothing. Does this make them crash more? Think again.