Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. did you ask him to try jumping across the canyon?
    72
  2. yup, destroys all credibility. "Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a cautionary tale for a reason.
    23
  3. mass = energy energy = mass gravity is affected by both
    14
  4. yes, I hate when an article says "according to studies", or "according to the science", but fails to cite any of those studies or their sources.
    14
  5. Philosophy classes. The basis of all science and the rules of debate are taught in Philosophy. There is a reason PhD is the most widely know Doctoral degree (PhD = Doctorate of Philosophy).
    11
  6. "Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a cautionary tale for a reason. Fear mongering means you can't convince people on the facts, because you're wrong. None of the doom predictions have come true in over 200yrs.
    8
  7. Ice cover is not declining. Cite sources for that. The glaciers were also retreating in the 1930s and came back, and they were receding again, and are now coming back again. Almost like climate is cyclical.....who knew.
    8
  8.  @Diamond_Tiara  30C hotter than winter, and life didn't cease to exist.
    7
  9. "Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a cautionary tale for a reason.
    7
  10. Aviation is impacted by 5G as well
    7
  11.  @humongouswalrus  most of these things already existed for decades. But we still don't have them in general because they are totally impractical.
    7
  12. exactly, the cost of reducing losses has to cost LESS than the losses themselves.
    6
  13. "Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a cautionary tale for a reason.
    6
  14. "Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a cautionary tale for a reason.
    6
  15.  @vidal9747  "Elemental particles get their mass from the higgs field. " no they don't. All of these theories, yet none of it works....if it doesn't work, it's not valid. "protons/neutrons are hevier than they should be just from the higgs field." proving my point. you claim something i so, while proving it isn't so. "Furthermore, what type of energy do you mean by energy? Knetic? Eletromagnetic waves? How "energy" gets concentrated enough so it can have a meaningful pull on other objects?" wow, do I really need to give you a lesson in BASIC physics? If you don't know what "energy" is, then you're not capable of having this debate yet.
    6
  16.  @russmarkham2197  but not always. and in this case there is no wolf. there has been no wolf for 200yrs. CO2 does not work the way they claim. food production is increasing as CO2 increases. Plants are growing in deserts more as CO2 goes up. Plants grow bigger and faster as CO2 goes up. Plants need less water as Co2 goes up (stomata). CO2 has a diminishing effect on temps, due to the logarithmic effects. Plants cool the planet.
    5
  17. 16:24 sure, climate models have gotten ONE thing right. But they never claim stratospheric cooling when they are preaching gloom and doom temperature predictions now are they? you're trying very hard to cover for people who engage in abject dishonesty. The, "97% of scientists agree..." bit for example, was based upon a simple survey where in the results were manipulated and the actual questions asked are never explained to the general public. When you put the survey questions in context, and review the actual studies, they do Not show 97% consensus, they showed 3% consensus at best.
    4
  18.  @climatechangedoesntbargain9140  you are doomed. I am not.
    4
  19. math and numbers are two different things.
    4
  20.  @NuntiusLegis  being vegan does nothing for the environment, in fact it would be worse. it takes FAR more farmed crop land to sustain a global population on veganism than to feed the same population on meat. Vegan is a diet of luxury. only rich well off people can afford to be vegan. notice how vegan as a "viable" diet only came about in the modern age with the success of modern agriculture (thanks to higher CO2 levels, oil/gas/diesel, and fertilizers). Vegans also end up in one of two conditions: 1) they stop being vegan, 2) they die prematurely compared to healthy people
    4
  21. correct
    3
  22. very nice idea
    3
  23.  @משה-ב1ט  they do not require superconductors. we already have directed energy weapons and have used them in combat.
    3
  24. Leftists destroying free speech by getting everyone to self censor.
    3
  25. A few degrees Kelvin change in temp is NOTHING to humans. Humans survive from the Siberian Arctic to the Antarctic and everywhere in between. the temperature changes more from summer to winter than the global average would shift in hundreds of years even if we did nothing. IPCC admitted in a Dec 2021 report that even if they got everything they wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, it would only reduce the global temp 0.1C by the year 2100. Nobody is going to notice.
    3
  26.  @sumdumbmick  I also find fascinating topics everyone thought was understood and settled, only to find out they weren't. This is far more common an occurrence than people realize. I also find enjoyment in figuring out how to make current discoveries and knowledge easily understood and comprehendible to the average person in a more engaging and effective way.
    3
  27. If people don't support Nuclear energy, then they have NO right to complain about CO2.
    3
  28. We are not having more extreme weather. in fact we're having LESS. When was the last F5 tornado? We're experiencing record low forest fires in the US. Hurricane frequency and severity is down in recent decades. Deaths due to natural disasters is way down. The predicted famines have not materialized and instead we're seeing year after year improvements in crop yields. I haven't experienced a single Blizzard since I was a child. We used to get multiple per year. We rarely get severe flooding anymore either. We've had a handful of tornados in my area in the past 10yrs. We used to get multiple every single year. try again with you WEF propaganda. it doesn't work on smart people who know science. Chemistry, heat transfer, math, periodic table, etc. this stuff is not locked behind a paywall. we're taught to do it starting as children. teh basics behind how this stuff works is easy enough to explain, yet NASA, NOAA, Michael Mann, and others refuse to share where they're getting their numbers from. People like you refuse to address heat island effect, the complete lack of historical global temp data prior to the 1970s, and much more.
    3
  29. people declared paper books dead with ebooks, that has since failed to happen,a nd many like me have returned to printed books almost entirely.
    3
  30.  @MeppyMan  I'd say losing altitude information on a precision approach close to the ground is risky.
    3
  31. no it's not burning. nice try at Crying Wolf.
    3
  32. my coworkers experience up to 40% range reduction in winter where we live too. the cold is no joke.
    3
  33.  @CAThompson  agreed. people and articles will say, "scientists agree". One consensus is not science, but more importantly I want to know WHO "they" are. I want a list of names to see who said what and in context. All too often they'll misrepresent what a person said and claim they said something other than they actually did.
    3
  34. @-GinΠΓ Τάο My God here was a figure of speech. but sure, go on a rant.
    3
  35.  @NuntiusLegis  "The complete opposite is true, it takes far more farmed crop land to waste it for animal food which results in way less calories as meat compared to eating plant nutrition directly." but when everyone eats less meat, they now need FAR more plant food to compensate, and animals still have to eat regardless. Unless you're advocating killing off all animals on earth too? "Vegan nutrition is way healthier, vegans have less heart problems, less cancer etc." this is so not true. it may be working for you right now. There are some people who can make it work. in that case I call it the "Unicorn diet", something that works for rare few people, and only if you diet at the far extremes. You may be able to ride a road bike, good for you. meat eaters can do it better than you. I too am far older than I look, and I've never been vegan, nor would I want to be. Vegans and obese people are the majority of the people who fill the hospitals. So many health problems are tied to those two diets. Humans are evolved to eat meat. but it is a fact meat (proteins/fat) based diets are far healthier for the vast majority of people. Tons of vegans have given up, switched to meat, and gotten healthier. and many people have fixed chronic health problems with meat. Veganism is a luxury diet, not a survival diet for the long term. "You clearly didn't check any of your statements, do yourself a favor and start doing so instead of making a fool of yourself." such as? curious you didn't refute any of them. the only one you attempted makes you an advocate for mass animal slaughter and extinction to carry out. By the way, how much farming experience do you have? what types of livestock and crops have you farmed exactly, and for how many years? "Farm animals produce more emissions than cars." you produce far more emissions than animals. what should we do with you? Also, CO2 does not drive climate change. Also, it was far hotter in the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature, and our sun doesn't emit enough energy on the spectrum of light that methane absorbs to matter. even if our atmosphere were saturated with the max amount of methane it could hold, the global temps would rise at most 1C. You'd die of asphyxiation before that happened. So if you believe lies like CO2 drives climate change, which is in fact responsible for the high crop yields that sustain your vegan diet, then how can I trust any other unscientific nonsense that you espouse?
    3
  36.  @strategicsage7694  except the patient isn't terminally ill, so giving them bad news is a lie.
    3
  37. surprise surprise, biology is a thing and life adapts and evolves, otherwise everything would have gone extinct long ago. Hard to claim things are dying off, when we don't even know how many there are or were. If you don't know how many there are now vs were, you can't know trends.
    2
  38. 22:00 extremely true. conversations with friends on touchy or complex subjects are FAR different in chat/text that when done in-person. in person they are productive and exciting. in text they tend to devolve into arguments. his is due to text stripping away a huge portion of human communications. Tone, inflection, facial expressions, etc. In fact, we've had conversations on this effect countless times over the years.
    2
  39. if the math gives a singularity, the theory is wrong. something is missing.
    2
  40.  @Thomas-gk42  potentially more than you might think. This idea is very similar to some others.
    2
  41.  @cuthbertallgood7781  I don't agree with teh expansion part, just find the wavelength idea compelling. Nuance.
    2
  42. Tron
    2
  43.  @Falconlibrary  "Literally 1001 applications" Yet you only named one.......and a childish one at that
    2
  44.  @משה-ב1ט  "What I object to is your characterization of the same as "childish"." too bad
    2
  45.  @משה-ב1ט  "Death rays are indeed one obvious application where reliable superconductors will greatly help." how do you figure that?
    2
  46.  @משה-ב1ט  " But the idea that something similar might be useful in carrying power a few meters from the capacitor truck to the emitter truck is not at all unreasonable." iI am an engineer who designs electronic cooling systems, and have served in combat using energy weapons that required their own generators to operate. it's highly impractical.
    2
  47.  @I_am_Raziel  Synonyms for, "let's just retroactively make crap up when our theory fails to match the data and observations".
    2
  48. so much ignorance in this video. Meat is never going away. it is the key to human health. And fake meat companies have all failed so far. Monogamy built modern civilization. The end of monogamy is destroying society, communities, education, and more. Self driving cars is a pipe dream for a long time yet due to the challenges we've yet to resolve. Computers simply aren't good at what humans are good at, driving being one of those things. Rolls Royce sold its EV initiative and is back to doing ICE engines. EV sales are slowing, and ICE demand is rising. Many manufacturers have abandoned EVs for Hybrids. Augmented reality has it's uses, but not for everything. People already have too many issues from screen time as it is (including lower intelligence and creativity). Only people who are anti-freedom are anti-cash. When pregnancy is no longer necessary, women will no longer necessary. Anti-monogamy feminists have eliminated themselves from relevance in society, except for pregnancy. Once they lose that they lose their value to society and all their preferential treatment. This would be a dystopian night mare future scenario.
    2
  49. can't have people understanding a subject when there is an agenda to push.
    2
  50. I agree, math is an invented tool we use. Numbers and math are also not the same thing, but people seem to interchange them seemlessly.
    2
  51. it's like trying to measure a moving billiards ball by hitting it with another billiards ball. the act of measuring the position and velocity changes the position and velocity. trying to measure a subatomic particle with another particle is just like billiards balls in effect. you're imparting a sizable impact on the thing you're trying to measure.
    2
  52. we've had four consecutive cold years here in teh US where I live.
    2
  53. starting out to test and hopefully prove a theory, only to disprove your own idea, and then publish a paper to share what you learned and that it didn't work is Valuable. too bad others don't think so in the science community.
    2
  54. some people with life experiences are more helpful with issues than college graduates with no life experiences.
    2
  55. every single climate model overpredicts reality. the data doesn't support the climate model predictions.
    2
  56. 12:30 us so-called "climate change deniers" as you'd label us, are well acquainted with this graph and have been trying to get people to talk about it for Years. Also, it is a verified fact that CO2, as a result of this graph and factors you mention, has a logarithmic effect on rising temperatures. You should be well aware what a logarithmic effect does. Each time CO2 increases global temps by 1C, we have to have doubled the amount of CO2.
    2
  57. Free Will and Determinism are two sides of the same coin. Both exist simultaneously.
    2
  58. quantum mechanics is a misunderstanding, often due to inadequate perspective
    2
  59.  @MeppyMan  fair enough
    2
  60.  @MeppyMan  I'm not panicked about it either, but the willingness of the gov and corporations to disregard people's and industry concerns and refuse to systematically and scientifically address them with all the time they had is disturbing to me. As a professional pilot and mechanical engineer myself, they idea they haven't tested this properly to evaluate the impacts is unfathomable. We never send a product like this to market without testing emissions, interference, etc. People have had years to evaluate this and present hard evidence to address each concern. It's not hard to have setup a few 5G transmitters and receivers and do localized controlled experiments next to sample equipment and sensors to collect data and test the effects in a systematic way.
    2
  61. every single climate model so far has overestimated the rise in temps
    2
  62. in the cold of winter where I live, you lose 40% reduction in range. And I have coworkers who own Teslas, VWs, Ford Lightning, Toyota Priuses, other EVs, and they all see this reduction. So let's say if you had 240miles of range in summer, you'd only get 150mi in winter. It gets cold here. And where I live 150mi doesn't get you very far at all. And that is assuming you were charged to 100%. Most EV owners I know only charge to 80%-85% most of the time. So take another 15% of range off that, leaving you with only 128mi range. Then on top of that, you don't want to risk running out of battery and being stranded, so now you want say an extra 20mi buffer, leaving you with only 108mi of effective real world range. And none of that factors in things like heaters and window defrosters, so you don't freeze to death while driving, or pulling a load.
    2
  63. Still waiting for you to attempt a video on how NASA and NOAA alters recorded temps. Since they are both unwilling and unable to explain why and how they do it, then it's not scientific. If you look at net sea level changes and recorded temps you'll see that we are not experiencing runaway warming of any kind, and are actually cooler than it was in the 1930s and 1940s. Also, CO2 has a diminishing effect on temperatures, and methane has little to no effect due to our sun not emitting enough energy on that spectrum. sea level rise claims are a lie. CO2 as the sole driver is a lie. EV cars being better for the environment is a lie. reliance on wind and solar is a lie. etc.
    2
  64. who gets to decide who is a "hate" group?
    2
  65.  @viktorm3840  the lack of logic among college students today proves you wrong. I attended 6 government colleges in 2 states over teh years, and taught at one, and logic is seriously lacking. Few people even take a single philosophy class in college anymore.
    2
  66. oh, we know how bad it can get. And if you think your country is bad, take a look at the CCP, North Korea, etc.
    2
  67. what is better? Planting trees, or increasing CO2 to let plants grow back on their own? According to NASA, rising CO2 levels regreened the Earth more than all teh trees planted by humans combined, and far more than all the solar panels ever made. Higher CO2 also results in high crop yields.
    2
  68. If we can't terraform Mars, then we can't stop climate change on Earth neither.
    2
  69. Nuclear outside of Russia has killed pretty much no one, and newer designs are far less dangerous
    2
  70. if you can't make teh transistor smaller, you make the chip bigger.....
    1
  71.  @Damnnnnnnnnnnnnnn  mind explaining how you think that applies? Computers are not compost piles for one.
    1
  72. many others before him used thought experiments. Thought experiments is an instinctive reaction for inquisitive minds. all philosophers use thought experiments. philosophy is the basis of all science and the scientific method.
    1
  73.  @brucejensen3081  Oh, so you agree gravity does exist. Since gravity is merely an acceleration. And one cannot distinguish one acceleration from another. But explain how your flat disk explains the sun rising and setting each day, and how the earth remains in orbit around the sun. This should be fun to watch....
    1
  74.  @brucejensen3081  in circles around the sun? How does day/night work if we're on a flat disk?
    1
  75.  @brucejensen3081  and why does it move about the sky? and how does the moon orbit us? And why have we never seen the edge of the earth?
    1
  76. They did "discover" it. Go read a dictionary.
    1
  77. Building Harlequin's Moon is an interesting take on terraforming planets.
    1
  78. you wouldn't accelerate indefinitely unless in vacuum, as you'd hit terminal velocity instead.
    1
  79. a computer can be mechanical OR electronic, analog OR digital.
    1
  80. the science deniers are the ones who don't understand how CO2 work. it cannot result in runaway warming.
    1
  81. CO2 can only absorb certain frequencies, and only so much energy before splitting into Carbon and Oxygen.
    1
  82.  @mauijttewaal  I have heard the explanations of time dilation, and I'm not yet totally convinced. but I haven't yet sat down to do the math myself to see if some thoughts I have on the issue are valid or not.
    1
  83. theoretical physics makes far too many assumptions, and develops further ideas on those assumptions, and gets upset when anyone questions those assumptions. Nothing wrong with making assumptions, but do not get upset when others pursue different assumptions in parallel. And never declare unsubstantiated assumptions as truth, and any opposition as heretics. Not all do this, but far too many do.
    1
  84.  @cuthbertallgood7781  spoken like a person who knows nothing about nuance. You missed my point entirely...... "The idea that "photons do work stretching space" doesn't fit the data." ....and it's obvious you didn't even read what I wrote.... typical ignorant fool.
    1
  85. analog computers count too, including mechanical analog.
    1
  86. this has been well known for a LONG time. the fact we have to argue with "scientists" to convince them of what has been known .......
    1
  87.  @משה-ב1ט  and according to PhDs who study superconductors, variable power demands makes superconductors impractical. do more research.
    1
  88.  @משה-ב1ט  I didn't say "difficult to engineer". I MEANT IMPRACTCAL. AS a combat vet, who tested Numerous prototype weapons and systems in actual combat, it's IMPRACTICAL for combat to operate sensitive superconductors that cannot hold up in combat. conditions. Stay in your lane!
    1
  89.  @משה-ב1ט  Iron dome and such don't use superconductors, and both are based on technology older than me. Proven tech. you clearly are not a combat vet, or youd understand why superconductors wont hold up in combat on the types of nergy weapons i tested. How many eenergy weapons have you tested in actual combat? I've never said tech would never work, blah, blah, blah. you said that. you tried putting words in my mouth and are making false accusations. "In my experience, when a Yank "senior engineer" or whatever claims that a thing can't be done or won't work, that's pretty good indication in itself that the thing CAN be done and WILL work." then you don't know much about math nor physics. We're reaching the literal limits of the laws of physics now in many fields, including the one I work in. you are ignorant if you think there are no limits to technology. I bet you also think battery energy density will continue to increase forever too? "You keep forgetting that you've been a decade behind in the relevant technological areas since at least the turn of the century. " not even remotely true. Name one case example of this? wow, look at you going off ona tirade. Yes, DEI and crap is ruining colleges, but I'm not one of those morons, and we don't hire such people. we can't afford to in our industry. "We'll build the "impractical" system, then you'll buy the IP, slap a McDonnell logo on it, and pretend it's yours. That's how these things work." somebody is butt hurt and jealeous. Name an example fo this happening?
    1
  90.  @משה-ב1ט  "They said it wouldn't work, but we built it: Iron Dome." WHO said it wouldn't work? It's just a SAM system. nothing special. "As it happens, I AM a veteran. And if there's one thing I know is that war's face is everchanging. What was impractical yesterday becomes practical today. What is impractical today, may well be practical tomorrow. " that's not what I asked. I asked your combat experience, and combat experience using prototype weapons, specifically directed energy weapons. So, basically you answered indirecytl,. you have no such experience. "We know that superconducting cables would be very useful if we could make them work, so therefore we will eventually find a way." except that the cost vs gain is negative. the experts in teh field disagree with you and state clearly that the minimal gains would not be worth the cost and limitations imposed by a superconductor technology. And dealing with electronics cooling realities daily myself, I agree with them. Technology has limits. "Human genius is unlimited. " it is limited by the laws of physics and math. our IMAGINATION is infinite, our technological capabilities is Limited. "The ones who forget that end up buried, whether by the newfangled Maxim gun or by the newfangled airplane, or by the FPV drone, or by whatever comes next." False. Everyone dies and eventually regardless. Directed energy weapons are not a prerequisite for victory. clearly you know nothing about military history.
    1
  91.  @משה-ב1ט  "The point keeps sailing right over your head, I see. " Not at all. im grounded in reality, you're full of fantasy idealism about technology. " If everyone keeps listening to you, we know which one it will be. Luckily, not everyone listens to you." People who listen to me innovate far more and faster than people like you. "A Tamir interceptor missile costs $20,000 at its absolute cheapest. An Iron Beam shot costs $0.25. Meantime, a rusty generic grad rocket costs around a hundred bucks, while a Quassam hacked together out of household trash, free UNRWA-provided groceries and scavenged sewer pipe will set you back around $50." and none of it uses expensive superconductors that can't tollerate engery pulsing. "Directed energy weapons are ABSOLUTELY the key to victory." Wunderwaffen are not keys to victory, just ask Japan with their super battleships and supercarriers, and the Nazis with their myriad fo weapons that failed. You know literally nothing about warfare if you think wars are won and lost by such technology. Not one war in history so far has been won by such a weapon. Also, directed energy weapons are DEFENSIVE weapons. You cannot win a war on defense only.
    1
  92.  @משה-ב1ט  "An army cannot fight if it has no rear areas. Nor can it fight if logistics are impossible due to enemy bombardment. Nor can reserves be mobilized or units deployed if they are paralyzed by bombardment and locked into their defensive positions. Nor, frankly, is there any point in "winning" if your rear is annihilated in the process and all your civilians die anyway." When has this ever happened? Give a case example. What does looking at a map help? What does any f this have to do with superconductors and energy weapons? "This is just silly. Please stop embarrassing yourself. Your notions of warfare are shaped by having an ocean to hide behind and a continent-sized country to depend upon. Not everyone possesses such luxuries." Not even remotely correct, all teh wars I fought in were on land in other countries, many times land locked nations. Again, you know nothing. and you can't cite examples, andyou can't explain nor prove how superconductors would help, nor have you proven a energy weapon wonder weapon would be a war winner.
    1
  93.  @משה-ב1ט  you're name is scrambled jibberish to me. And where you are from proves nothign regarding superconductors and energy weapons. "Jeez, we're done here." you are "Thanks for invalidating your alleged credentials, by the way. No one with a real engineering degree could possibly be that dense." in what way? what was I dense about. I'm stating facts, and you dodge, deflect, obfuscate, and spread lies.
    1
  94.  @OzixiThrill  "First things first - You overreacted to a joke. As in... WAY overreacted." Did I? are you sure? What is your evidence? how do you define "WAY overreacted"? I don't care if it's a joke, if it's a terrible joke. "Another case of you missing the point. Tell me, where did your rations and ammo come from, during those conflicts? Did you forage your own food? Did you barter for your own ammo? Or was there, oh I don't know, a continent sized country defended by oceans that was supplying you?" Yes, I have devised tactics that specifically call for foraging supplies, to achieve a specific objective. sometimes that's what you have to do, and we did perform our own unsanctioned "logisitics" operations and missions at times. "Another case of you missing the point. " in what way. you never provide a valid counter argument, you just ask questions and expect me to make your case for you. how about stating a single fact that can be verified that supports ANYTHING you siad? "Now, I considered agreeing with the other guy about how you've been lying about your background, but then... You managed to lose in Afghanistan, despite occupying the place for a decade. And somehow, that performance sits in line with this level of understanding of warfare." and this is how I know you have no clue and are losing. you are quick to whip out the ad hominems and other logical fallacies. You can doubt my background, but you can't disprove it, but I can prove it. but, now that calls into question YOUR background and qualifications, if you try to discredit mine. So state what makes you think you have any clue what you are saying is true. What experience are you drawing upon? we didn't lose in Afghanistan. We won with EASE. my unit and the US military won every battle and had the country under total control with no real casualties for years. Our bumbling idiot of a president prematurely pulled us out before teh country was stable and ready to stand alone. we pulled out, bu choice, not due to military defeat. the fact you can't even figure that out discredits literally any other claims you make about miltiary matters.
    1
  95.  @OzixiThrill  "The quality of the joke is irrelevant. You took someone seriously who was obviously not making a serious statement." that's not for you to decide moron. it's my right to react to it however i like. stop being a communist dictator wannabe.
    1
  96.  @OzixiThrill  "The fact that, after that you ended up having an argument spanning days shows that you overreacted to the situation." says the guy who restarted the debate days later...............
    1
  97.  @OzixiThrill  "I'll spell it out for you - The guy made the point that US military doctrine relies on the mainland never being under threat. Which is relatively simple when most possible avenues of attack would need to come from the environment where camouflage of any sort is near impossible. Any operation you end up as part of will ALWAYS have the materiel support of the mainland. It's so ingrained in your doctrine that the very notion of fighting a defensive war or the notion of not having support from the continental USA is inconcievable to you to the point where, when someone points it out you're more confused than the average shell-shocked trooper. Which in hindsight is rather evident and I shouldn't take too great of an exception to you fumbling around the idea." partially true, but not entirely, and never what I claimed. you're terribly confused. sea power, learn what it is. it is not a guarantee.
    1
  98.  @OzixiThrill  "Ah, yet another person who can't tell the difference between an insult and an ad hominem. Or really, any fallacy in general. In case you're struggling to catch up, an ad hominem tries to discredit someone by asserting some negative trait or behaviour. Asserting that said negative trait translates to some argument not being valid (which is only a correct statement in some very nieche situations - Conflicts of interest and some cases of hypocrisy). An insult simply asserts said negative trait or behaviour putting any stakes in the discussion on it." execpt you had no actual argument, your entire comment hinged on baseless insults, and without those insults, there was no argument left, thus it's an ad hominem, as you have no other argument.
    1
  99.  @jackroutledge352  correct, but given that such a viable superconductor doesn't yet exist, and given their finicky nature to implement in reality, it is highly likely it will cost more than it saves to implement and maintain. I don't work in an industry that consumes a LOT of electricity and we focus not only what our product costs the customer, but also how much it costs our customer to operate it over the life of the product (and that can be tens to hundreds of millions in electrical costs). so decisions like this are part of my job. we are always looking for ways to reduce the TOTAL cost (purchase + operating costs) to the customer. Sometimes it's worth improving efficiency instead of reducing purchase cost, but other times it is not. If a new feature is far more efficient, but costs the customer more than it will save in operating costs, we will never implement it.
    1
  100. so the answer is nuclear energy? solves a lot of prblems.
    1
  101. "S", because "A" and "a" were already taken? A=area a=acceleration Probably not, but worth a shot. Also, there are language differences going on among scientists back then.
    1
  102. the only true science values honesty
    1
  103. Not only does Gasoline outperform hydrogen in weight/volume, it outperforms Lithium too. If you don't compare it to lithium, then this complaint against hydrogen is invalid. lithium electric cars are heavier than gasoline cars too, and I don't hear you complaining about lithium. Not a valid criticism of hydrogen EV. hydrogen suffers from a lack of supporting infrastructure, but is better than batteries for aircraft and cold climates. More people would buy them if there were actually hydrogen filling stations.
    1
  104. Quantum computing was always snake oil to begin with. Nobody in the supercomputing industry takes Quantum computing research seriously. Nobody even talks about it. But everyone has been investing heavily into AI for years now.
    1
  105. We don't NEED Dark Energy, people who've invested their entire identity/career into failed theories WANT Dark Energy.
    1
  106. genetics is not a major factor. all you have to do is look at historical people to see that.
    1
  107. quantum computing is vaporware
    1
  108.  @rusty6172  nope, we have documented proof. Obama's own climate advisor was on a National Geographic TV show in teh 1970s advocating the US and USSR nuke the polar ice caps to melt the ice and stave off an ice age. We have doom predictions in newspapers going all the way back to teh dawn of the Industrial revolution and the use of steam/coal power. We have decades of doom predictions by "climate scientists" and alarmists about Fiji being underwater, about famines, about ice ages, about extreme weather, no more snow, etc. and they have never come true in over 200yrs of trying to predict it. None of Greta's nor Al Gore's predictions have come true, nor have any climate model predictions come to pass as they've all vastly overestimated. " MIT's models predicted the world would end in 16 years so you should still be open ears if your reasoning goes the way you say" wow, that is a stupid statement. So they are demonstrably untrustworthy and wrong, but you see that as confirming evidence they are right and that you should listen to them anyways? I have a bridge I want to sell you, let me know if you're interested.
    1
  109.  @russmarkham2197  there is no existential threat, and it is slowing down if anything. you've been lied to, and no real science supports the lies they are feeding you.
    1
  110. rounded edges is already well understood by engineers.
    1
  111. "Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a cautionary tale for a reason.
    1
  112. I'd argue F=ma is still more famous than E=mc^2 E=mc^2 does get put on random posters and such though, making it seen more often visually. But more people are probably familiar with F=ma as they are actually taught that one and how to use it.
    1
  113.  @voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885  you first...
    1
  114. In years past I used to enjoy reading science magazines, now I haven't read but maybe a handful of articles in recent years. I think this is due to a number of factors. 1) I know more about science than I used to and can recognize BS or bad articles, or I just already know the topic the article is about. 2) better writers are retiring and being replaced by worse writers. lots of bot written content, gimmicks, sensationalism, click bait, some writers who don't seem to have a clue what they are talking about, etc. 3) articles are no pushing agendas, and they keep writing articles about the same stuff over and over again rather than discussing all the new stuff. but this requires understanding and awareness of new developments. 4) lack of objectivity, failure to adhere to the core fundamentals of the scientific method. (sample size, placebo, data, double blinds, sample diversity, complicating factors, controlling for variables, etc.) 5) etc.
    1
  115. Methane is more potent perhaps, but the sun doesn't emit enough energy in our solar system to matter. Thus in the end it has even less effect on earth than CO2 would, and CO2 has far less effect than claimed due to logarithmic effect and saturation.
    1
  116. SMRs increase volumes, reduce time to bring online, can be more distributed
    1
  117. 17:40 banning drugs increases crime
    1
  118. and people claim video games will "rot your brain". Sabine proves otherwise.
    1
  119. And this is why people have a trust problem with scientists, just saying. They are as human and fallible (and some are even corrupt) as the rest of us. Mind you, I personally work in a cutting edge STEM field and have multiple STEM degrees too, and I still distrust many "scientists" and don't just take them at their word. I challenge my coworkers all the time to make sure they aren't making baseless claims or assumptions.
    1
  120. 17:00 climate change alarmists. They've made thousands of false predictions ever since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. time and again they keep predicting the ice will melt, the snow will never return, the islands will flood, cities will be underwater, famine, droughts, etc. They've been wrong for 150yrs and yet people still listen to them and ignore the raw data and trust the manipulated climate models.
    1
  121. most Flat Earthers well know they are wrong. they are just either worthless people seeking attention and meaning in their life, or they are trolls. And then everyone falls for it and actually believes these people actually believe their own lies and get annoyed rather than just ignoring the Flat Earthers..
    1
  122. Coffee: mixed = disordered Loaf of brad: mixed = ordered the idea of order and disorder is not an objective one, and this is part of why I have quietly questioned the idea of entropy many times over the years. it depends upon perspective. That, and teh question of, how did the universe Get to be at a state of low entropy such that we can now increase in entropy? Something had to cause it to be high in the first place. We can take dirt, and refine it into steel, then it rusts and gets mixed with other materials and thrown away. then we refine it once again into steel in a process called recycling.
    1
  123. 12:12 this is also Exactly how climate models are created too. yet you totally ignore all the scientific fraud going on in climate predictions.
    1
  124. earth has had CO2 levels 1 order of magnitude higher than now without destroying life.
    1
  125. in the 70s they advocated nuking the ice caps to ward off an ice age..............
    1
  126. ok, so basically Quantum Mechanics is wrong. FAR too many assumptions are required. They need to start proving a LOT of these assumptions FIRST before they can start making up baseless theories based upon them. They are getting ahead of themselves, resulting in abject failures in their "theories".
    1
  127. anyone who claims to be about the environment that opposes nuclear power is a fraud.
    1
  128. in the 70s they advocated nuking the ice caps to ward off an ice age..............
    1
  129.  @UteChewb  but when you fear the wrong things, it ruins your life.
    1
  130.  @Alfred-Neuman  we will not reach 15bil, not even close. We're topping out at 9-10bil. meanwhile we already have more than enough food capacity to feed the world 2x over, and as CO2 rises, so do crop yields per acre. If the entire global population stood 2ft apart, everyone could fit easily inside and area of land smaller than England.
    1
  131.  @Alfred-Neuman  yes, 9-10B. this has been modelled and predicted for decades now. many good lectures on youtube explaining the math, including using visuals. Nearly all countries are below replacement levels, including China, US, European nations, etc. Russia is in teh process of killing off millions of people. China's population in general was found to be overestimated by something like 300mil people. Only places like africa are growing in population. but it takes time for the population to age out, so it appears to still be going up when it's just a bubble. You have to understand how population growth/decline works.
    1
  132.  @Alfred-Neuman  yes, it is already slowing. still climbing but slowing. do some research.
    1
  133.  @Alfred-Neuman  yes, but only places like Africa are still growing, poor nations. all wealthy nations are below replacement levels.
    1
  134.  @Alfred-Neuman  it's not comfort, it's necessity. Vegan is the luxury, not meat eating. Meat eating is necessary. Travel and transport is necessary. Be the change you want to see in the world. so how about living the tough lifestyle you demand we all live? Why wait, start now. But don't you dare use anything that comes to your city by semi, delivery truck, airplane, ship, railroad, etc. anything that required a vehicle is off limits to your ideology. see how long you last.....
    1
  135.  @AGWUK  that is assuming you are surrounded by wolves, which you're not, and that you haven't cried wolf too many times before hand, which you have. At this point I want the wolves to eat you, so even if you cried wolf, and it was legit, I'd just watch them eat you so I never have to listen to you again.
    1
  136. Dark Matter = God Dark Matter is a fiction invented to plug a hole in a failed hypothesis. And rather than proposing a new hypothesis, people continue to try (and fail) to find evidence of God to make their false hypothesis true. Dark Matter =/= Science Dark Matter = anti-science
    1
  137. none of those things are happening, nor will happen, unless communists take over.
    1
  138. i don't expect you to have an agenda, I expect you to follow the logical science. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temps. We don't have historical global temp data required to make the claims they make. ALL of the climate models keep overestimating actual temps. NASA and NOAA are unscientifically manipulating the temp data to show warming, the raw data and historical data does not show this, and NASA/NOAA do not explain how they're making these temp "corrections" nor why.Also, modern reported temp data is subject to Heat Island effect, and many temps are then "reported" not by actual stations, but by interpolation from those heat island stations. Rural stations and satellite data shows no warming to be concerned with. In 2019 the IPCC published a paper admitting that even if all of the Paris climate targets had been magically achieved by all nations, it would only reduce temps by 0.1C by the year 2100, showing just how little effect humans are having. Higher CO2 is regreening the planet faster than any/all human efforts in history, according to a NASA paper using their satellite data. CO2 improves plant growth and makes plants more water efficient, thus enabling them to grow in drought/desert regions again, and sequestering CO2 once again. follow the science, not politicians and "scientists" with agendas. You may not have an agenda, but the people you blindly trust DO have an agenda.
    1
  139.  @Diamond_Tiara  you clearly didn't comprehend my comment. But since you're French I'll give you a break since english is clearly not your first language. 30C DELTA I've been through 120-147F for weeks on end (not sure what that converts to in C off the top of my head) and worked in up to 160F temps for hours on end. I've lived in hot and cold climates. And where I live now we've had unusually cold winters 3 out of the past 4 yrs in a row. and this winter was average, but less snow than usual due to warm air currents due to an el nino year.
    1
  140.  @k.h.6991  one warm summer =/= climate change. temps have actually been cooling off since 2012. the only places heating up are urban cities with no trees. the temp sensors are in heat island effect or being averaged with good stations, dragging the averages up artificially. rural regions like forests are no hotter than 100yrs ago. CO2 does not drive temp change. And it is know and proven scientific fact that CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temps. the more you add, the less impact i has. It took 200ppm of CO2 to raise temps at most 1C. now it will take another 400ppm to get it o increase another 1C. And then it will take another 800ppm to raise 1C more. and then it will take 1600ppm increase to raise another 1C. 400ppm +400PPM = 800ppm (giving 2C rise total) 800ppm + 800 ppm = 1600ppm (giving 3C rise total, this is still within yearly variations of temps throughout the seasons people wont even notice this much warming) 1600ppm + 1600ppm = 3200pp (for 4C total rise) CO2 changes stomata levels in plants making them more water efficient and drought resistant, and regreening deserts. Plants prefer CO2 levels at 1200ppm or greater for optimal growth. We started at 200ppm. If we had dropped below 150-180ppm all plant life other than grasses would cease to exist, and all the animals that depend upon those plants would have gone extinct. We were on the verge of extinction at 200ppm of CO2. during the Cambrian explosion (greatest diversity of plant and animal life) CO2 was at 4000ppm. Life thrived at those levels. Global average sea levels are not rising at all. in some places it is rising, and other places it is falling, this is due to plate tectonics, something you should have learned about as a child. But when you add up all rise/fall along every coast in the world, overall they average out to zero net rise. hurricanes, forest fires, and tornados are at a record low in history for frequency and intensity. Crop yields are increasing year over year with rising CO2.
    1
  141. voodoo science at this point.
    1
  142. just listing a bunch of catchy talking points doesn't make you right. none of this proves CO2 is causing warming.
    1
  143. CO2 is not the evil silver bullet controlling climate like simpletons believe. Higher CO2 also has tons of environmental benefits. For example, reducing stomata levels in plants making them more water efficient and drought tolerant, increasing plant growth (size and rate), etc. The great explosions of plant/animal life on earth occurred with far higher CO2 levels.
    1
  144. Quantum computing was always snake oil to begin with. Nobody in the supercomputing industry takes Quantum computing research seriously. Nobody even talks about it. But everyone has been investing heavily into AI for years now.
    1
  145. you're not going to make Mars like earth, but even living in domes, having the atmosphere at 20% of earths, and -50C, with an artificial magnetosphere is better than what it is at now. And living on Mars is arguably safer and easier than living on a space station. Iterative improvements over time add up.
    1
  146. pre-industrial average? based upon what data? looks like the current temps are near the data average. some years are hot, some cool. so what's the issue?
    1
  147.  @michaelsommers2356  did I claim it was? Attention to detail.
    1
  148.  @michaelsommers2356  it was very clear that I never said nor claimed that. you're failure to stop projecting your thoughts onto others is your own problem. e.g. Are you a communist? because you didn't make it very clear in your comment that you weren't one. See how stupid that is? Again, attention to details, and not reading into things that aren't there, is a critical skill in science.
    1
  149.  @michaelsommers2356  "You clearly implied that the major, if not the sole, cause of quantum uncertainty was the effects of the measurement process itself. Any competent reader would understand that that is what you meant." I said no such thing. Quote me where I claimed that. You're projection and reading into things wont change that. "You obviously have only one goal now: to explain away your misunderstanding of the UP. " nope, my only goal is to refute your lies about what was, and was not, said. you don't get to reinterpret another person's words and tell another person what they meant to say. That's known as the Fallacy of Speculation, or "mind reading".
    1
  150. Anyone who fears pseudoscience, is not a scientist.
    1
  151.  @russmarkham2197  Just like Obama? all the climate alarmists own coastal mansions and flying private jets that consume inordinate amounts of diesel fuel. Insurance rates on coastal properties is not going up. WEF elites are still buying coastal property. Must be a good investment if the global elites telling you to be afraid are all buying it up.
    1
  152.  @CaodeSucks  CNN has proven to be consistent in their low quality content and lack of factual reporting for decades now.
    1
  153.  @russmarkham2197  "By the way, not only is the temperature rise caused by CO2 devastating to plants, the increased CO2 is causing nutrient levels in plants to drop massively. So the plant may be bigger but less nutritious." not even remotely true. If you look at temp records in rural areas, remote regions, temps are down, not up. Plants cool their surroundings. India and parts of Africa have had great success with this. and their local temps are dropping due to teh additional vegetation. The vegetation also prevents excess water evaporation. Being larger does mean less nutrients, it means potentially lower nutrient density, but same nutrient for the size. but lower nutrient density only really applies to GMO foods, not natural plants.
    1
  154. insurance companies aren't going to allow you to fix crashed EVs with battery damage (or even those with any possibility of battery damage). too high risk, too expensive.
    1
  155. Rich people: can afford EVs Rich people: can afford chargers in their homes Rich People: can afford homes with parking spaces that accommodate chargers
    1
  156.  @bowez9  100% right
    1
  157. ever notice how all the people forcing others to buy EVs they can't afford, own private jets?
    1
  158. Ever notice how people well off enough to afford an EV and charging at home, ignore the fact most people don't own their own homes, can't afford an EV, and have no place to park and charge an EV when they get home?
    1
  159.  @jeremydable2468  " If you can afford an ICE you can better afford an EV because they no longer cost more to buy, new or second hand. They have been cheaper to run for a long time. And they will last far longer and be 95% recyclable." so untrue. Cost to buy is out of reach for most people. The used prices and replacing worn batteries cost as much as new. The short rang makes them impractical for many people. Electric prices are on the rise. My ICE car gets good enough mileage that I've beat Tesla owners on price per mile of energy before. There is not enough grid energy> EVs still require maintenance, they are not magical objects. Ball joints, tie rods, shocks, struts, wipers/fluid, oil, coolant, lights, tires wear faster due to weight, brakes, wheel balancing and rotation, wheel bearings, batteries, electronics, pumps, filters, etc. EVs (Lithium, Cobalt, etc.) are far less recyclable than ICE (steel/aluminum mostly, copper, oil is recycled too). Presently, much of EVs aren't being recycled at all.
    1
  160.  @jeremydable2468  "I see how you chose your username." you have no clue where my username comes from. two words, each with their own story. Descriptors received through actions, not chosen.
    1
  161.  @jeremydable2468  "we must disagree firmly on all points then. One of us may be right. Time will tell." time will tell. But I know I will win as I'm forming my opinions based upon science, math, physics, reality. You are basing your opinions on fantasy magic in lala land.
    1
  162.  @jeremydable2468  "The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies" absolutely correct. but that means the person who puts forth an idea, is responsible for proving it, or backing it up. However, people will try to misconstrue this. If a person makes an argument, and another person then tries to simply deny the first person's argument without any evidence or logical reasoning, that does not mean that denier is right. The denier must also defend their declarations as to why something is false. Many people will simply deny any hard facts or verified evidence before them in a childish attempt to "avoid losing" the argument, not realizing they lose by default if they fail to defend their own claims.
    1
  163.  @JJRM8  citing someone claiming it's happening, doesn't make it so. Show the hard data. Nature is a well know climate change propaganda pushing journal.
    1
  164.  @icevariable9600  all of them
    1
  165. even at low efficiency, you can use 2-3x as much hydrogen and still be cheaper than many of the other options.
    1
  166.  @grodesby3422  and they don't have DRM issues, censorship issues, retroactive banning issues, etc.
    1
  167.  @marcosolo6491  recycling paper is environmentally responsible. refusing to use waste products for things like paper is extremely ignorant and environmentally irresponsible.
    1
  168.  @cookiescraftscats  studies show somewhere between 0.7C to 1.0C of global average warming since the Industrial revolution, with best estimates being somewhere around 0.7-0.8C, but I round to 1.0 when doing my math to give benefit of the doubt and because it makes the math easier for people to follow.
    1
  169.  @cookiescraftscats  "We’re well past 1 K and accelerating." what are you talking about? insults don't win an argument. And you don't know the story behind my username, so don't act like you have a clue. That was a nickname given to me after a series of events over the course of a few months. it has actual history to it. It was Earned. How about actually disproving with actual facts?
    1
  170.  Reckless Abandon  slinging baseless accusations with reckless abandon doesn't make you right. Not a shred of facts-based science in your opinion.
    1
  171.  Reckless Abandon  Consensus is not science. You know how many scientists wrote in opposition to Einstein when he first proposed his theories? A lot. They were wrong. Sciences is about repeatable results, not majority vote opinion. Your previous comment contained nothing of value and was more about insults. nothing to refute. "Why are there far more atmospheric physicists who agree that increase in CO2 warms the atmosphere, and how many do not? " Name names? I want a list of names. I want to know what their area of expertise is. CO2 does warm the atmosphere, but logarithmically, thus having diminishing effect the more is added. The experiment to prove it has been done hundreds of times in the past 100yrs. That is science, repeatable results by countless studies and experiments. "By the way, I am an atmospheric physicist, who knows the science, but am not convinced simply cutting emissions is the way to solve the problem. Cutting emissions lowers the Gibbs Free Energy available to create new technology and will end in a technological collapse. By using the low entropy fossil fuels we can create faster economic growth and greater technological growth to get to alternatives like Thorium and Fusion that much faster." bunch of word salad that explains nothing, proves nothing, and actually avoids the issue. If you actually know anything about the atmosphere, you'd know that CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature.
    1
  172. fear mongering is childish and stupid, and destroys all credibility. "Boy Who Cried Wolf" is a cautionary tale for a reason.
    1
  173. I tend to feel imaginary numbers results from bad assumptions. There are many things I can think of about certain aspects of math, not just imaginary numbers, that is logically inconsistent. Historically, theories used to lead with logic, and follow with the math. Only very recently has the dynamic bean changed, and no math leads logic, and we run into constant paradoxes and walls, even when following the logic first doesn't agree with the math-centric solutions. Problem with math is you can make it do a lot of things that just aren't so. This means we can come up with near infinite theories based solely on math, but only one can be right. Logic first, then math. When math goes first, we get nowhere.
    1
  174. Gravity is not a force, gravity is an acceleration.
    1
  175. socialism, communism, inflation, etc., tyranny, and systematic destruction of the family and mal relationships, are all causes of depression.
    1
  176. doesn't Chaos Theory alone disprove Time Reversibility in Quantum mechanics? Even when you know the initial conditions you can't predict the outcome, so that's going to make it even worse working in reverse. I rejected the Black Hole information loss idea the very first time I heard it. It made no logical sense to me whatsoever. It feels like a bunch of hand waving and relying upon stacks of assumptions that haven't been verified.
    1
  177. Not only does Gasoline outperform hydrogen in weight/volume, it outperforms Lithium too. If you don't compare it to lithium, then this complaint against hydrogen is invalid.
    1
  178. climate change is the new false flag science story (like peak oil, ice age, etc.). look at the raw data. even the IPCC reports and studies admit the impact of humans is small, and that we can do little to change it. NASA and NOAA wont explain the means by which they alter the raw temp data (refusal to accept peer review, failure to produce repeatable results). But the NASA/NOAA raw temp data is still on their site. try to alter it yourself if you don't believe me (others have and they couldn't replicate NASA/NOAA's alterations). Climate Change = science by consensus. Climate change scientists refuse to debate "deniers", because their science is BS, and the "deniers" are the scientists who Actually know the science and facts behind what is going on. CO2 works logarithmically, and this is a known testable fact of science. we got no more than about 1.0C warming in the 150yrs following the Industrial revolution as CO2 doubled from 200ppm to 400ppm. to get another 1.0C rise would requite 800ppm. to get a total of 3.0C rise would require 1600ppm. That is scientific fact. Methane has little effect on earth due to lack of energy emissions from our sun on the spectrum Methane absorbs. Saturating the atmosphere with maximum methane would net a max 1C temp rise (and we're talking extreme methane saturation). Life on earth thrived in the past when atmospheric CO2 was 1500-4000ppm. Also, following WW2 we saw a Massive increase in fossil fuel use and yet we saw a massive drop in temperatures globally from the 1930s and 1940s into the 1970s year after year (which is where the ice age fears came from). But how can this be true if massive increases in fossil fuel usage and CO2 emissions were spiking? how could the temps DROP for 3 decades straight following the largest increase in CO2 emissions globally? Just proves CO2 alone is not the driver of climate, and even if it is, it has a logarithmic and diminishing effect on climate. The earth is more complex than Venus, we have oceans, plant and animal life, etc. that Venus lacks. so don't go making apples and oranges comparisons there either. These factors serve to dampen or offset things that happened on Venus. I used to believe in climate change. but one day I started 3month deep dive into the fundamental science and math behinds it. started with a single atom of CO2 and worked my way up using basic chemistry, heat transfer, etc. Then I started looking at the actual RAW temperature data, the hurricane data, the tornado data, and more. Then you start looking into historical records and events, and you realize it's all a big fat lie. I also read reports rather than just the bullet points. I check claims and make sure the data supports it. I've done computer modelling using python myself. I understand how a computer does interpolation, extrapolation, curve fitting, etc. and I can also tell people the limitations and flaws of this as well, and how it leads to bad results and predictions with these crap climate models. I can also show how these climate models are impacting our daily lives as well.
    1
  179. overuse of water causes drought
    1
  180. Quantum computing was always snake oil to begin with. Nobody in the supercomputing industry takes Quantum computing research seriously. Nobody even talks about it. But everyone has been investing heavily into AI for years now.
    1
  181. If you compare the "break even point" of an EV vs ICE, and factor in end to end emissions (Mining, manufacturing, driving, recycling/disposal), and then show what happens when an ICE vehicle that lasts 20-30yrs is compared to an EV owner replacing their EV every 6-7yrs (or even 10yrs), which is what studies are showing is happening. Those EVs have multiple break even periods, and higher emissions due to mining, manufacturing, and recycling. EVs turn cars into consumerism items, and in no other industry would this be considered "green" or "sustainable. EVs are very expensive too, and with no viable used car market, which is how most people come to own vehicles. Sustainability is all about building long lasting, reliable, repairable items. Build it once to last. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Key here being REUSE. Nobody will refresh EVs when their batteries go bad due to cost.
    1
  182. lithium electric cars are heavier than gasoline cars too, and I don't hear you complaining. Not a valid criticism of hydrogen EV.
    1
  183. who should pay for "global warming"? the climate crazies that are destroying our economies and putting people into poverty.
    1
  184. 17:30 Egyptology and other ancient history scientists are also guilty of suppressing studies and evidence that contradicts their personal pet theories that have since been shown to be wrong or inaccurate. Rather than acknowledge the new evidence and update their thinking, they suppress opposing views and evidence so they can continue to make money and earn prestige on work they did decades ago, rather than continuing working on anything new.
    1
  185. nothing like starting off the weekend with some alarmism....
    1
  186. quantum mechanics = the inability to measure something directly Nothing more.
    1
  187.  @schmetterling4477  " What is it that you believe religiously can't be measured?" Religiously? not sure what nonsense you're spewing here. Religion has nothing to do with science. "experimentalist" you say? mind explaining what that is? is that like basket weaving for STEM? Some new woke science title? Or are you some sort of religious cult leader? But aside from all that, here's a few starter questions for you. How do you measure position and velocity of a subatomic particle? How do you know where an electron is?
    1
  188.  @schmetterling4477  If I'm a "kid", you must be a toddler. quantum field theory is a theory, nothing more. You still haven't explained what the hell an "experimentalist" is. You also haven't explained how you can measure position a nd velocity, as well as the electron. you claimed I was wrong about measurement, and you said you could do it, so tell me how or you are a fraud and a liar. In science, a person is required to defend and explain their methods and claims, otherwise it is not science at all.
    1
  189. Most people don't even know what AI is, and what it's limitations are.
    1
  190. crowd sourcing is a proven method
    1
  191. so if the winds were to get weaker, then climate change can't be responsible for worse weather like tornadoes and such. the climate crazies need to get their story straight.
    1
  192. hydrogen isn't environmentally friendly in the same way that Lithium batteries, wind turbine production, EVs, and more isn't environmentally friendly. Can't help but see teh hypocritical standards used to judge different technologies differently with apples to oranges comparisons and cherry picking how to judge each technology.
    1
  193. exactly, earth has vast oceans to help regulate.  @donaldkasper8346 
    1
  194. it still doesn't understand. talk to it enough and yo can recognize repetitive answers. I have asked chatbot questions and it gets the important ones wrong 3/4 of the time I tried it. it's more like a web search tool that is textual.
    1
  195. the ONLY solution for energy where i live is either nuclear, or coal/oil/gas, end of story. quit whining about CO2 as it's not the boogeyman people claim, or get onboard with nuclear.
    1
  196.  @jamesmungall6669  10X the normal amount is still FAR less than historical levels of burning in the early 1900s, and in the 1800s. Also, as far as environmentalism and conservation goes, forests NEED to burn to restore them. It's Natural and Healthy for a forest to burn. I lived and flew in AZ for years, and we'd have forest fires every single year. The forest fire fighting operations were based out of Prescott, AZ each year. When flying, you could tell where the past fires had burned in previous years, but only for 5yrs. After five years, the forests grew back to the point you couldn't tell they'd ever burned at all. CA has tons of fires, for example, because they do conservation all wrong. They even go so far as to Ban environmentalism, which requires controlled burns to be conducted.
    1
  197. that describes the vast majority of physics theories.
    1
  198.  @vensroofcat6415  Never said Dark Mater/Energy were valid. they are voodoo science. Mass = Energy Both Mass and Energy affect spacetime curvature. Learn to read, don't make false accusations.
    1
  199.  @Rober2D2  "protons and neutrons have more mass than that explained by the Higgs mechanism, true." good, so we agree the Higgs model is BS. "But they are not elementary particles." where did this come from? why do you keep changing the subject? when was this ever part of anything I said? Now we're drifted into Red Herrings.
    1
  200.  @nathangamble125  it is wrong. I never said anything about any particular atom, particle, etc. being "fundamental". Please, learn to read. you're so far off topic, you're literally just arguing with yourself at this point. as none of this has anything to do with m nor what I said.
    1
  201. ​ @mrwho995  if the theory doesn't explain what we observe, then the Higgs theory is objectively wrong. that's how the scientific method works. Propose hypothesis, test hypothesis, and if that hypothesis fails to match the data, then it's wrong. "And why are you pretending to know anything about particle physics?" I'd love to know why you think you know anything about them, given the state of your arguments. " If you did, you'd know that whether a particle is fundamental is extremely important in terms of where it gets the majority of its mass from." It has literally Nothing to do with what I said. learn to read, stay on topic, stop dragging this off into the weeds. "I know it must feel nice to pretend you're special and all those silly scientists who dedicate their professional lives to studying something is wrong, but try to live in reality rather than your delusion." AI just got over 15k PhD published papers de-published for fraud. most people are publishing nonsense. we haven't had a breakthrough in physics in my lifetime. we're chasing false interpretations of the math. This results in bad theories. Multiple people could observe the motion of one of Jupiter's moons and each come up with numerous math models to accurately predict its movement, yet most of them would be 100% wrong, even though early tests suggested they were right. That's where you are, blindly following the people who interpreted it wrong. And yet we run into flaw after flaw after flaw. we're still debating Dark matter/energy for crying out loud, an invalid fraudulent attempt to plug holes in the current failed theories. You can't prove a thing I claimed wrong. you just sling ad hominem insults and use red herrings. Unscientific, logical fallacies.
    1
  202.  @oerthling  Nice cherry picking there.... Yeah, I bet the people on the Canary Islands are handling EVs well too. I'll give you a few guesses why that is. now, how big is Norway's Population? and what percentage of vehicles are owned by Norwegians? and what percentage of total miles driven globally does Norway comprise?
    1
  203.  @oerthling  "Why would Norways population Matter? Think of other countries as n Norways. A country with 10 times the population also has 10 times the grid, power production etc..." Wow, education is in the gutter these days. becasue 25% of Nothing, is Nothing. There are only 5mil people in Norway. Compared to 8+Bil people, 25% of 5mil is a rounding error. It's basically zero. Things like wind energy don't scale well. Many places on earth can't rely upon wind, solar, nor hydro. Also, yes, if a country of 5mil has electricity for 5mil homes and businesses, and enough gas for 5mil cars, does NOT mean they have enough electricity for 5mil cars. In fact, adding a single EV to the grid is equivalent to adding an entire HOUSE. the grid has capacity for current demand. Doubling the number of "houses", means you need to DOUBLE the grid in terms of electrical production. Not to mention all the new infrastructure. now, a country like norway, where driving is FAR less than many other nations, and their population is a fraction of a city in many other nations, is not going to drive much to begin with, making EVs easy to convert to. You literally picked one of the Best case scenarios on the entire planet, and tried to use it as an example as if it at all in any way correlated to China, US, Australia, Canada, African nations, Brazil, and more. Most of the rest of the world will have to use Coal to charge their EVs to get enough grid energy to meet present demand, PLUS hundreds of millions of EVs being added to the grid. An electrical engineer converted the total global miles driven by ICE to EV, and figured out teh kWh per mile of electricity EVs are getting, and calculated using simple by correct math that it would require us to build a new nuclear powerplant ever week for 30yrs to get enough capacity for 100% EVs globally.. And this is all without accounting for the lack of available lithium, cobalt, and other rare earth minerals needed. Nor does it account for the slave labor presently being used to extract what we are already sourcing. Nor does it factor in the environmental damage caused by mining and processing those rare earth elements (it's toxic). Nor does it factor in fire hazards, and recycling costs in terms of energy and pollution. A recent study out of the UK found that cradle-to-grave, ICE are far better for the environment overall than an equivalent EV. ICE are cheaper, easier to manufacture from simple materials that are easy to recycle endlessly (steel, aluminum, copper), and the ICE cars easily last 20-30+yrs, whereas the average EV last 6yrs presently.
    1
  204. just like how infinities at asymptotes don't exist in real life, neither does time reversibility. math can lead people astray, and seems to do exactly that more often than not these days. People need to spend less time in the math, and more time in Logic.
    1
  205. lets not forget Newton came up with his ideas before the math to prove them. Faraday came up with his theories with no math at all. Einstein had his brilliant idea before coming up with the math to prove it. All good science leads with logic and thought experiments, Followed by the math to prove it. Math can be used to "prove" all manner of things that are not actually true. Letting the math lead you blindly is bad science. Our theories should be based on observations, ideas, with the math trying to then prove or disprove the theories that arise as a result of observations and logical reasoning.
    1
  206. most Flat Earthers well know they are wrong. they are just either worthless people seeking attention and meaning in their life, or they are trolls. And then everyone falls for it and actually believes these people actually believe their own lies and get annoyed rather than just ignoring the Flat Earthers..
    1
  207. kind of like how most of the "climate change" data is fabricated. they altered historical data, and made up data for periods of history in which they had literally no data for. Scores of NASA scientists called this stuff out years ago, but were ignored.
    1
  208. every single airline flight exposes you to more radiation than any nuclear plant will.
    1
  209.  @terrymckenzie8786  200miles is wholly inadequate in my area. one coworker was going on a trip, and he had to leave his EV at home because it couldn't make it to the airport. The distances I drive in a typically week can be 300-400mile in one go. I can do a 600mile round trip without even stopping for gas in my ICE car, and where i am going there is no charging. And all of that is without towing a load.
    1
  210.  @VAspeed3  40% reduction in range. So if you had 240miles of range in summer, you'd only get 150mi in winter. It gets cold here. And where I live 150mi doesn't get you very far at all. And that is assuming you were charged to 100%. Most EV owners I know only charge to 80%-85% most of the time. So take another 15% of range off that, leaving you with only 128mi range. Then on top of that, you don't want to risk running out of battery and being stranded, so now you want say an extra 20mi buffer, leaving you with only 108mi of effective real world range.
    1
  211.  @terrymckenzie8786  People seem to report ~250-350miles real world range, before factoring in cold losses, partial charging losses, etc. Depends upon the EV. 600km of range is great for someone that has an EV with that range, but useless to someone with an EV with much less range. And again, all ranges specified for a given EV are the Max possible range in ideal conditions. My Cessna airplane has a 100hp engine, but that HP rating only applies to a brand new engine, at sea level, at maximum RPM. Also, some of that horsepower is used to run the vacuum pump, fuel pump, magnetos, and the generator. As I climb in altitude I lose horsepower, and only create useful thrust from the propeller from whatever HP is left over. It works the same for range specs on an EV. If you tow a load, operate in cold climates, use the heaters, don't fully charge the battery to 100%, etc. you won't get the maximum range.
    1
  212.  @VAspeed3  the cold weather merely reduces the chemical reaction in the battery.
    1
  213.  @reiniernn9071  irregardless how much energy is used, the lack of range is a Serious problem. EVs have very short range to begin with, and in winter they are almost unusable if you need to leave town.
    1
  214.  @reiniernn9071  I can easily drive more than 360mi every weekend, one way. And the places I go often have no charging. Everyone I know drives this much regularly. And they are often towing something too. I've driven 1800mi to over 2000mi solo nonstop except to get gas (my car has 800mi per tank) many times (I don't stop to eat either). I drove over 1100mi one-way with my dad once to buy a set of snowmobiles and tow them home. We did the whole trip nonstop (both ways) except for gas. A few months ago we drove 5hrs one-way just to get a trailer and bring it back (there were none available closer, and the deal we got made the drive worth it too). This is normal in many parts of the US.
    1
  215.  @reiniernn9071  "May be too much people are making those long travels non stop....and are getting to tired. " no, most people don't drive that long. more like lawlessness in general, resulting in more speeding and other bad behaviors going unchecked as police stop enforcing laws. I've driven 20-26hrs straight, by myself, multiple times. 3-7hrs in a single day on a weekend by myself is perfectly normal. 10+hrs with others switching out is common too. But I don't do super long distance nonstop solo trips all the time.
    1
  216.  @rico4229  Sodium Ion batteries degrade quickly when charged and discharged and such short lifespans make them far less practical as a replacement for long-lasting lithium ion batteries. Sodium Ion batteries lose 15% performance at -20C, which is still significant when your nominal range is 200-300mi, and doesn't account for the energy needed to keep the passengers warm, further degrading range (whereas ICE cars get their heat for free). Tesla's lose 20-30% range in cold weather, including heating. So their battery range loss minus heating would be less. This means Sodium Ion are crap rechargeable batteries and have barely better cold performance. Also, sodium Ion batteries have HALF the energy density of Lithium Ion, meaning that for the same size and mass of battery, the Sodium Ion will have HALF the range of an equivalent Lithium Ion battery, even before considering cold weather performance losses.
    1
  217.  @rico4229  "I think long term you will be proven wrong." Based upon what, hopes and dreams and fairy dust? "But that's my opinion" Exactly right, your opinion is not based upon science. There is this thing called the Periodic Table of Elements, Chemistry, and the Laws of Physics. There is only so many combinations of elements we can use for batteries, and for each known combination of elements, there is a known maximum energy density that is possible. This is why education is so important, and why our nation is going downhill fast due to the lack of proper education. "What you have to remember is that ICE cars have dreadful economy in cold weather especially when used over short distances. " how do you figure that? I've lived in cold climates most of my life. Starting cars and driving them in -30F temps. My car gets lower mileage in winter because of the winter fuel blends and denser air (more air per stroke means more fuel per stroke). Yes, I can lose range due to heating, but people often use electric plug-in heaters to warm the engine and such. I still beat the Tesla in the I94 2000mile road trip the youtuber made with my 20yr old Buick Lesabre. I beat his summer trip too. My car gets 44mpg in summer, and 36mpg in winter. On a long winter trip with mere minutes spent refueling, almost no time goes to warming the car, so fuel losses are due to fuel blend and atmospheric conditions. I've driven across teh US multiple times in my car, 2x 20hr trips, a 32hr trip, and a 36hr trip (all driving nonstop), and 2 more 18hr trips with another person, anther 2x 16hr trips with others, and a 28hr trip with my dad (14 out, 14 back), all nonstop. And that is just in the last few years. Rarely have to stop for gas more than 3 times per trip, and that takes 5-10min tops. I live close enough to work to walk or ride bike. Walking takes 45min, bike takes 15min, car takes 5-7min. But I usually drive as I will run errands after work, or go to events, and I go straight from work to save time. And because during a typical work day, I have to run over to the factory to deal with issues, or run over to the lab to answer questions, inspect something, conduct a test, or look at an issue. And I can't afford to waste large amounts of my work day walking/biking around town. Even driving from my office to the lab a few miles away, can take a total round trip time of 20min, even if I'm only there for 5min. Sometimes I only have an hour between two meetings to run over there. Biking is far too slow, and would cost the company tons of money, and would eventually cost me my job. "There is no ideal solution, but all I can say is that the future is not ICE the future is electric." you said their is no solution, but then said the solution is electric. One, you contradicted yourself. Two, you're wrong, teh future is not electric. Reason being is we don't have nearly enough sources of electrical energy that don't run on coal, oil, or gas. Wind turbines are never going to be the answer, nor is solar. There are reasons why neither will be the solution. Hydro is definitely not the answer either. Hydro is most common in my state, and there is nowhere near enough. Wind is unreliable, and thus we have no real wind farms in my state. We are too far north for solar to be viable. Multiple utilities in my area tried it and tore their solar fields down within a few years. Could have saved them millions by showing them the simple math any high school kid can do as to why it would fail. In college (for engineering) I did a study and report on solar power and batteries for the home, specifically evaluating the Tesla power wall. I got an A, but my report proved I could build a Powerwall just as good as a Tesla ($17k), for only $2500, but that solar was also not viable for our region as a primary source of energy. The study did not reach the conclusion I was hoping to find, but I follow the facts, not my feelings, and the math was irrefutable (and so I got an A). The vast majority of total energy is not consumed by cars anyways. And EPA regulations are preventing progress from being made in higher fuel efficient ICE vehicles as well.
    1
  218.  @coffinshark  the speed of pumping gas has nothing to do with cold weather range anxiety. As a person who knows people with EVs and lives in cold climates, they worry about the range reduction of their vehicles all the time. I even had a coworker regret buying his EV becasue of it.
    1
  219. 7:00 Very interesting idea indeed
    1
  220. They're not competitors. Quantum computing was always snake oil to begin with. Nobody in the supercomputing industry takes Quantum computing research seriously. Nobody even talks about it. But everyone has been investing heavily into AI for years now.
    1
  221. In Mass Effect they had VI, Virtual Intelligence (what we have now, cheap imitations), and actual AI.
    1
  222.  @johncanthearyou  Simulated and artificial are not the same thing. Simulated is pretending something is intelligent. Artificial is non-organic, non-natural intelligence (we played god). Simulation: imitation of a situation or process. Artificial: made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural.
    1
  223. Also, EV ranges reduce over time with repeated charging cycles. ICE vehicles do not lose range over time.
    1
  224. they can learn to code, or get into a trade job. it's not our job to guarantee them jobs for making up nonsense, at taxpayer expense.
    1
  225. What was it Edison said? He learned 1000 ways Not to build a lightbulb? There is nothing wrong with exploring all ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth, even if only to know which ideas are not correct and why.
    1
  226. If you can't criticize something, it's not science. Censorship is anti-science, anti-free speech, anti-freedom. Proof climate change is a lie and can only be defended by tyranny, lies, propaganda, threats, and censorship. Climate change is not science. CO2 is good for plants. NASA/NOAA does alter the reported temps from the recorded temps without explaining how nor why they did it. CO2 also has a logarithmic effect on temp, and this sis a known proven scientific fact. CO2 has also been far higher in the past and life didn't end back then. Consensus is not science. the ONLY proper way to counter "scientific misinformation" is with scientific debates. We aren't afraid of debating flat eathers nor do we censor them because we can easily defeat them in debate, but climate change freaks refuse to debate their critics. Why is that? It's because they know they'll get destroyed in fair debate. Their claims can't withstand critique when they can't control the narrative. You criticize people like me as "deniers', but I dare you to point out and PROVE anything in this comment that is factually untrue.
    1
  227. most Flat Earthers well know they are wrong. they are just either worthless people seeking attention and meaning in their life, or they are trolls. And then everyone falls for it and actually believes these people actually believe their own lies and get annoyed rather than just ignoring the Flat Earthers..
    1
  228.  @Combat_Epistemologist  I'm well aware most degrees are not PhDs. But people generalize them all and refer to doctoral degrees of any kind in general as PhD. Philosophy was the first degree, the first field of science. As knowledge increased, philosophy started to branch out into topics like astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. But the basis of science (rules of debate, logical reasoning, and the scientific method) all originated with philosophy.
    1
  229.  @misterbg1  if they are teaching that in a Philosophy class, then they aren't actually teaching philosophy and should be fired.
    1
  230. just as light takes a curved path in curved spacetime. as taking the straight path would result in a miss altogether (not least time to reach destination).
    1
  231. sure, blame depression on guns, for no logical reason whatsoever.
    1
  232. temps rose 1.0C in the past 150yrs, as we increased from 200ppm to 400ppm of CO2. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temperature. This means that to get an additional 1.0C of warming (2.0C total), we'd need to increase from 400ppm to 800ppm. And to get a 3rd 1.0C of warming (3.0C total), we'd need to increase from 800ppm to 1600ppm. How many centuries will that take? most people alive will never see another 1.0C rise due to CO2 even if we changed nothing. But if you want to change it anyways, the ONLY viable answer is Thorium and SMR nuclear energy. Even if nuclear is not completely "green", it doesn't matter. If we don't invest in development, it won't get better.
    1
  233.  @georgelionon9050  there are many issues and common misconceptions baked into that report. It also assumes unending exponential CO2 growth, which is not happening (most is India and China anyhow). Nations like the US have decreased CO2 year after year for over a decade now even with growing population and energy consumption. Most nations are in population decline and so will see a drop off in energy consumption. Many countries are also working on alternative energies o we'll see a lessening of the "exponential" hysteria. Also, increased CO2 is regreening the earth faster than all human efforts to plant trees and such combined have ever accomplished. 200ppm CO2 is barely above plant death, and not something we should strive to maintain. 400-1000ppm would be better for the planet overall. The report also seems to ignore a number of other causal factors other than CO2 that can effect teh results of the data we're seeing.
    1
  234.  @georgelionon9050  yes, not a problem because it's not. and even if it was, people are doing things that will avoid the doomsday predictions. but worse than that the conclusions and data is not being interpreted correctly. They even are claiming a 3.0C rise which is out of line by 2.0C of accepted values. And recent studies published around Dec2021 and Feb2022 also showed that even if we did Everything the climate alarmists are demanding, by 2100 we'd see a reduction of temp rise of only 0.1C according to their own models. Also, that at best we're seeing a 0.13C rise per decade, meaning that by 2100 the most we'll see is a 1.0C rise. So all this alarmism will do is reduce teh temp rise in 2100 to 0.9C, assuming their models and predictions are even true (and they are most likely not). Trillions of dollars in economic damage, for 0.1C? most people can't even tell the difference. So it will be -10C in winter rather than -11C, and 29C in summer rather than 28C. who cares. It was warmer in the past such as the 1930s and 1940s, and in other historical periods and the world never ended then either.
    1
  235.  @georgelionon9050  3.8C? funny, no actual data outside of doomsday models (which have all been widely over estimating reality so far) suggests that. Solar energy is still unaffordable to most of the world's population, and doesn't work in many locations such as where I live (perpetual cloud cover, high latitude, short days, snow cover, hail damage, etc.). you need to do more research into the sum total realities and problems with "renewables", look at what happens to wind. They are replaced every 20yrs, and either put in landfills or burn the waste for energy. can't be recycled. and despite wind power being next to nothing in global energy, it contributes a significant portion of plastics waste. increasing wind will only make that far worse. Never mind the effect wind has on local wind and rainfall patterns, disrupting agriculture and other effects (birds).
    1
  236.  @georgelionon9050  I'm not jumping around, you must account for ALL of it and more to make a prediction. Yes, teh measured data, using NASA and other satellites, is showing the models are all over exaggerating and the warming is much less than claimed. These so called climate models are not science, they are horoscopes at best. To explain why would require a bit of time and multiple diagrams, and explaining how computer prediction modelling actually works. Sun and orbits are Known influences and cannot be excluded. The sun is THE driving factor here. Without the sun there is no warming at all, earth would freeze over.
    1
  237.  @georgelionon9050  Not jumping around at all. clearly this is all just new to you. 1.0C in the past 150yrs. Yes, it rose a bit since 1970, but it also plunged dramatically between 1940s and 1970 first, so that averages out. climate cycles are typically 15-30yrs. So up for a time, down for a time, up for a time. You're seeing a short term up for a time, that is ending, and falsely projecting it forward without end. That is wrong, that is not scientific, and it is called cherry picking. Only looking at teh section of data that supports your claims. Yet temps haven't increased much in the past few years. and where I am we've had a number of cold years in a row now. we're still getting snow this past week in fact. Please explain how heat in the oceans works. Because NO one alive knows for sure how it works. There are good theoretical starting points from teh research done after WW2, but that doesn't explain everything, and there has been no significant progress in oceanography since. So, nothing has been settled at all regarding the oceans, and definitely hasn't been settled regarding climate change.
    1
  238. Dark Matter is a fabrication to plug holes in a failed theory
    1
  239. Quantum computing was always snake oil to begin with. Nobody in the supercomputing industry takes Quantum computing research seriously. Nobody even talks about it. But everyone has been investing heavily into AI for years now.
    1
  240.  @armandaneshjoo  got anything other than Ad hominem fallacies? What specifically is wrong, according to you?
    1
  241. yup, and she gets it almost 100% wrong in this video. Meat is never going away. it is the key to human health. And fake meat companies have all failed so far. Monogamy built modern civilization. The end of monogamy is destroying society, communities, education, and more. Self driving cars is a pipe dream for a long time yet due to the challenges we've yet to resolve. Computers simply aren't good at what humans are good at, driving being one of those things. Rolls Royce sold its EV initiative and is back to doing ICE engines. EV sales are slowing, and ICE demand is rising. Many manufacturers have abandoned EVs for Hybrids. Augmented reality has it's uses, but not for everything. People already have too many issues from screen time as it is (including lower intelligence and creativity). Only people who are anti-freedom are anti-cash. When pregnancy is no longer necessary, women will no longer necessary. Anti-monogamy feminists have eliminated themselves from relevance in society, except for pregnancy. Once they lose that they lose their value to society and all their preferential treatment. This would be a dystopian night mare future scenario.
    1
  242.  @humongouswalrus  but these things are not "closer than we think". Many of these things have existed longer than my parents have been alive. Flying cars - exist jet packs - exist private drones - exist cities in clouds - will never exist on earth, maybe on Venus, Jupiter, or Saturn. underwater villages - exist aqua farming - exists communal living - exists as long as human civilization has existed. mars colonies - the only challenge is getting there. Could have been there already with gov will, and public support, to do so in the 1970s.
    1
  243.  @humongouswalrus  most people I know are well aware all of it exists. And I know of stuff even more amazing that already exists as well. But I'm a professional Pilot and Engineer, so people I know, know more about these things. "I've never seen someone with a jetpack flying around like in San Andreas and flying cars usually refer to things like in Star Wars." You need to get out more. people have been flying around in personal jet packs since the 1970s. And there is a startup in UK that sells jet packs. They even have jet pack search and rescue now, and jet pack racing, and the military has been trialing the use of jetpacks. got google it. takes 5sec of your life. Children can do it. Flying cars have existed since about the 1950s, and there is a new concept these days just about every few months. some more practical than others. But flying cars will NEVER catch one for the average person, and I'm saying that as both a professional airplane and helicopter pilot, and as an Aerospace and Mechanical engineer. people do not appreciate the reasons why they will NEVER be viable. you can't just will away physics. Mars colonies are not that complicated. Mars has decent gravity, an atmosphere, water, etc. It's easier than living on a submarine. I've actually personally developed technology for NASA to enable going to Mars. A Moon base is actually much harder than Mars. Go read the book, "The Martian", as that book details how to do it. It's all real science, the author spent years consulting with actual engineers, chemists, NASA personnel, etc. when writing the book to ensure he got the details right. Right after the movie came out, NASA discovered water on Mars, making it even easier than the book/movie depicts. Notice how the character deals with a break of the Mars habitat.
    1
  244.  @ArawnOfAnnwn  a cashless, meatless, non-monogamous society is not viable long-term. cash is necessary for freedom and certain small transactions. not everyone is a credit card company. selling stuff to friends and private transactions, etc. Not everyone has technology. Meat is CRITICAL to human health. End of story. Without monogamy, society as we know it will eventually collapse. It will end in war, violence, and lots of death and destruction.
    1
  245. hydrogen suffers from a lack of supporting infrastructure, but is better than batteries for aircraft and cold climates.
    1
  246.  @climatechangedoesntbargain9140  climate alarmism has no foundation for concern. it's all built on lies. in over 200yrs of doom predictions since the industrial revolution (coal and steam power), not one has ever come true.
    1
  247.  @strategicsage7694  " The best science we have tells us that the global climate is in a lot of trouble and that human behaviors are contributing greatly to the problem" not even remotely true. you've been lied to. show me this "best science" you claim exists. And "experts say" is not science. I want data, math, equations, physics, chemistry. Appeal to authority is anti-science. " I see them being too conservative, as evidenced by the fact that the IPCC's predictions are far more often less damaging than the results end up being rather than the other way around." the IPCC published 2 papers in 2019. one stated that even if they got every nation to curb emissions as they wanted, by 2100, at best we'd reduce the global temp by 0.1C. They have repeatedly admitted in papers no one talks about it's nothing to be worried about. There is no supporting temp data. temps have been cooling off since 2012. We're still colder than it was in the 1930s and 1940s. CO2 has a logarithmic effect on temps, this is a known and proven scientific fact based both upon fact and countless experiments proving it.
    1