So what you're saying is we're going to power this: With sails... Using the wind... Yeah, okay man. I thought technology was supposed to progress, not regress. But I guess we're all okay with 6 month voyages again?
Yes, we will be able to build a competitive EV, sooner or later. But in ships, there's no clean alternative to ICE except sails, and commercial airliners are impossible without ICE. Biofuel-powered ICE is the only way to go, so we need to stop listening to environmentalists who push electrification and focus on biofuel development. The Greens need to be stopped. They are one of two rising political powers (the second being far-right populists) in Europe and that's alarming. A crowd of stubborn uneducated people led by emotions is a very dangerous thing, and that's what they are. Even in their twisted ways, they are still inadequate. They think they care about nature when they stage their protests against "big bad rich men", but actually they do nothing to help it and just sit on their whiny ass wanting the "big bad rich men" to fix all the problems. These nuts could do nature an actual favor if they got together and cleaned a nearby forest or water body, but they prefer staging stupid protests instead. And when they stage their protests, they like to block traffic (even subway trains!), thinking it will somehow affect the "big bad rich men". Actually, there will be ordinary people like clerks, teachers, doctors etc stuck in that jam (fun fact: in US, a sick man died because some far-left anti-Trump protest blocked his ambulance), while the hated oil company CEO will just look outside and say "Hey, get my helicopter running!". Although they probably hate these ordinary people as well, since, like Russian socialists used to say in 1917, "who's not with us is against us". The Greens keep demanding things like "50% less CO2 emissions by 2025" which are virtually impossible, but they don't care, since, like I already said, they want others to fix the problems they bring up. They demand an oil-free world. Start with yourself, dumb fucks - your clothes, your shoes, your fancy phone, your sunglasses, the markers you write slogans on your banners with, the tarmac you're standing on - all of them are made using oil. If we ditched oil, we'd be driving cars (push cars?) of metal and wood on cobblestone streets while wearing 18th century clothes. Also we'd have to kiss goodbye to most food grown in distant countries and goods produced overseas would have to be delivered by sailing ships.
@Ytrewq While I agree there are plenty of stupid environmentalists (the whole impending apocalypse narrative is obvious BS to anyone whose common sense has not been stripped away by years on Reddit and perhaps Twitter, or by living among certain Europeans), there are plenty of perfectly decent ones too, and some action is necessary to avoid long-term consequences from climate change. "Some action" is basically inevitable anyway - the only question is, will it be rational, science-based action targeted towards actually mitigating climate change, or merely a pretense for the more nonsense elements of left-wing politics? Also, do you know how much fucking biofuel we could be producing right now? Screw sails, start making diesel (for boats and some cars) and alcohol (for planes) from surplus corn, soy and food waste. IT'S NOT HARD, PEOPLE.
The problem with biofuel is the oil industry. The day biofuel's start taking over is the day we're all old enough to be in our graves. There's no doubt that biofuels are cleaner, easy-ish to produce, and the resources are absolutely abundant as all get out. It's highly unfortunate that politics and big oil are so heavily interwoven that we're forced to destroy the Earth's crust even more and cause further damage to the atmosphere by mining nickel and lithium for use in batteries. That and batteries don't exactly decompose all that well. It's a viscous cycle, and some of the many reasons as to why I don't particularly care for EV's. They seriously aren't all that much cleaner when you break them down, and the circlejerk that surrounds them even within this forum is absolutely toxic.
There really is no debate in this thread, it's more of a moderate liberal circlejerk at the moment, which is unfortunate. I wish there were some silly "environmentalists" here so there would actually be a point in discussing all this - maybe I could learn something too - and so the following talking points would actually go to some use: So let me get this straight. Science says we are overdue for a mass extinction event, and that we may very well be causing one. I am not debating this. In every mass extinction event, some species survive and proliferate while others die off. There has never been a species better equipped to survive a mass extinction than Homo sapiens, yet you [the silly kind of environmentalist] are certain that humans will be extinct in the next 20-30 years. That is almost impossible unless the air somehow becomes literally unbreathable or if the entire world becomes uninhabitable due to high temperatures. Neither of these are predicted to happen, even in the worst case scenario - which will not happen, as there are plenty of rational environmental scientists and reasonable politicians ready to get to work as soon as the next election rolls around and/or Donald Trump is out of office. Sensationalist media and European Redditors have played off of your fear, the easiest emotion to exploit. Fear is the closest thing to an arbitrary code execution vulnerability in the human mind. If things were as bad as you say, climate change would be the only issue in the news or politics. Complain all you want about "the libs and their 69,420,666 genders," but at the very least it's a sign of life that other issues are still important. You want something to scare you, don't you? Here you go: as a computer scientist, I believe there is a 100% chance that humans will destroy themselves completely in the "near" future. Not 20 years from now, but certainly in the next century or two. (I will _probably_ be dead by then, but still.) At least with climate change, we know what we're dealing with and how to fix or at least mitigate it. With artificial intelligence, on the other hand, we have no idea. The emergent properties that lead to consciousness, general intelligence, evil, we do not understand - and possibly cannot understand - but we are well on our way to replicating them. The military applications of a GLaDOS-like general AI are well worth the investment - logistics, surveillance, drone control, even cyber warfare. What happens when that AI, already well-versed in hacking other systems, learns to exploit a buffer overflow in an overlooked debug output function, or perhaps a Spectre-like CPU-level code injection vulnerability in one of the legacy servers, and begins to alter its own code? Then there's no way to control it. Try to switch it off remotely and you might find a Hellfire missile in your living room. The computer room's already been flooded with mustard gas pumped in through the CO2 fire suppression lines, and the sentry guns are live, so cutting off the power from inside the datacenter is a no-go. If you shut down the power station, the backup generators come on. God help you when it finds the nukes - or rather, you better hope it finds the nukes and kills us quickly before it finds a use for us. Imagine having an army of 8 billion slave laborers. This is ever so slightly more plausible than "It's three degrees celsius too hot today, guess we're all gonna die now." Rogue AI makes even the most paranoid climate change nightmare look like a breezy day in the park. Personally, I consider it inevitable unless people learn to code really fucking well, really fucking fast - and as it turns out, we actually suck at computers.
Or maybe we need these climate alarmists, because, in compromise, we might get decent, moderate policies.
Growth on the South Shore is pretty recent. Boston also changed quite a bit. Boston in the 1970s (particularly the Seaport district) is barely recognizable. This is between 2009 and 2016:
The issue with biofuels is that even at 8L/100 km and 10kkm a year, you need at least 4.5 hectares (corn) to fuel your car at one harvest/year. That's enough caloric intake for over 40 people.
Yeah, that was Davol Cove in modern day Fall River here. This one also drastically changed over time (I know this intersection, it's not too far from Davol Street/Cove actually).
When you poorly design an Automation car and you didn't pay attention to what engine you put inside it.
Some of that can be solved by government incentives to plant more corn. Corn is a shockingly poor source of food anyway; it's much like rice in that regard. --- Post updated --- Also Tomorrow™
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.re...oyers_of_reddit_what_are_your_crazy_employee/ How is it that these people could all get a job, yet I've been trying to get one for 3 years now? Every time I get an interview, I'm told that I would be a good fit but either A) that company refuses to hire people who haven't had a similar job before Or B) They will not hire me unless I know my schedule 2 semesters in advance (even businesses founded by alumns of my school. Have they forgotten how signing up for classes works already?) It's really annoying at this point. All but 1 of my friends from my university are in the same situation though. Somehow my friends from other universities don't have this problem at all. I got a job with a self employed family member which pays very well thanks to the large ammount of overtime and travel pay, but I would like a real job nonetheless. I'll be a junior this coming semester, which is when companies around here start accepting students for internships. Seeing as that company run by an alumn doesn't know how signing up for classes works, I'm not thinking these internships will go well...
