It will be very difficult for someone over the internet to help you troubleshoot without some type of schematic of what you’re trying to accomplish.

It is a politically savvy and ethically correct move. Really nice when those line up.

The argument I’m making is that we should not call them chemicals when they don’t have the capacity to make chemical reactions.

An analogy could be how we use the word weed. We call unwanted plants weeds. If there is mint growing in your yard and you don’t want it, it’s a weed. If you sell your house and the next owner likes it that mint is not a weed anymore. It’s still mint (element) but no longer a weed (chemical).

You make a good point. I should have said “things in the plasma state” should not be considered chemicals.

Hydrogen and Helium are elements, I guess it depends on what your definition of a chemical is.

The reason I’m saying plasma is not a chemical is because it is too energetic to make atom to atom bonds which I feel is the basis for chemistry. If something cannot interact chemically I feel we should not consider it a chemical.

Please note that I did not look up any formal definitions, just expressing my reasoning for my argument. (Aka I’m probably wrong).

I think plasma isn’t a chemical since the elements can’t form molecules. So the sun and lightning aren’t chemicals.

I think you two are speaking about different steps in this hypothetical transition. You are talking about the long term goal, the other person was talking about the transition from now to the long term scenario. There is very real danger that the power vacuum left by the x-billionaires could be gobbled up by a small group of people. This cannot be dismissed even if we all agree on the end goal.

Secondary critique, set the wealth cap in relation to some other moving metric. I think a multiple of minimum wage would be great, give incentive for the wealthy to increase minimum wage to achieve a higher cap.

It will be rejected because Israel justifiably does not want Hamas to exist.

Israel will also use this to unjustifiably reject it to proceed with a genocide on civilians not affiliated with Hamas.

And this is why learning history matters. It gives context for these friggin bizarre norms that accumulate. It allows us to realize when the norms are useful, we’re useful and are no longer needed, or we’re always just humans being weird.

(Also, Samsung makes their own chips.)

Example holds up better with Google (for Pixel line).

Russian assassination are pretty clear. Anyone with half a brain can put the pieces together, but there is just enough plausible deniability that there cannot be direct retaliation legally or politically. It is a clear threat but just barely veiled enough to avoid legitimate retaliatory action via legal or international responses.

I agree that planting trees is generally good, but doing so can’t sequester the amount of carbon released by humans since the start of the industrial revolution. We need other avenues to do that. If we returned forests back to how they were 100,000 years ago (untouched by modern humans) the new trees that would grow wouldn’t be able to soak up the CO2 released. Returning the forests to that state with the current world population isn’t feasible either as we need some of that land for agriculture.

I get your sentiment, but we’re beyond a ‘plant trees’ solution.

This is such a stupid headline. It gives no context for that number. Is that big or small compared to other years? Is it big compared to other countries’s military contractors? What does ‘made’ mean? Is this revenue or profit?

It’s obviously intended to make us outraged because it’s a big number, but the article actually said it went down by 3% last year. Why wasn’t that the headline?

This whole article feels very click-baity to me.

Semiconductors are used for transistors because they give us the ability to electrically control whether they conduct or resist electrical current. I don’t know what mechanism you’d use to do that with superconductors. I agree you don’t ‘have’ to have resistance in order to achieve this functionality, but at this time semiconductors or mechanical relays are the only ways we have to do that. My focus is not in semiconductor / IC design either so I may by way off base, but I don’t know of a mechanism that would allow superconductors to function as transistors (or “electrically controlled electrical connections”), but I really hope I’m wrong!

Really appreciate the write up! I didn’t know the computing power required!

Another stupid question (if you don’t mind) - adding superconductors to GPUs doesn’t really se like it would make a huge difference on the heat generation. Sure, some of the heat generated is through trace resistance, but the overwhelming majority is the switching losses of the transistors which will not be effected by superconductor technology. Are we assuming these superconductors will be able to replace semiconductors too? Where are these CPU/GPU efficiencies coming from?

Stupid question probably - is computing power what is holding back general AI? I’ve not heard that.

Agreed, it’s a half step forward. Leaving fossil fuels underground is still progress, even if we aren’t sequestering CO2 in the atmosphere.

I’m optimistic that building a market like this can drive design efficiency for direct air capture tech. If that efficiency is improved it could make capture and sequestration a more plausible option for govts in the future.

Fingers crossed!

This is an interesting take that some institutions have interest in keeping a slow and low level conflict going indefinitely. I have to admit I haven’t heard or considered this perspective. Most of the evidence provided though can quite easily be described by pure reactionary measures to the situation though. The examples provided like grain and oil speculation do not require a conspiracy of interests prolonging the conflict to explain why we saw those markets respond that way.

I do t doubt that some groups could benefit from a prolonged conflict, but I don’t see any direct evidence from your post, just a narrative that implies it’s possible. I think it’s a great idea to pursue this line of thinking, but I’m not personally convinced at this point.

Fantastic post, even though I don’t agree with your conclusions!