gleglegle

They have some public demos! https://youtu.be/ZAYiEyaUk2M?t=143&is=fXjn7PcE47Dw2Ayf

contrails.org do a great job of explaining this and have some solid interactive tools that allow you to simulate the effect of flight plan changes: https://explore.contrails.org/explorer?time_start=2025-01&ti...

10,000 autonomous ships to do it in 9yrs?

Per passenger?

Good visual overview of nitinol properties here (Action Lab): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65r6Ztxi0EQ

Tomorrow’s efforts have been creative and very interesting to follow. It was sad to hear that the demand is so weak for their solutions.

Not at all.

This is worth reading all the way through. The script the Times team wrote to keep Bing and other search engines accountable is a great example of effective tech journalism.

One could drive an electric car for nearly 2000 miles with that much energy.

Collective action is probably much more meaningful than individual action. So spporting candidates that are serious about implementing policies like a carbon tax or eliminating exsisting economic incentives for fossil fuels is probably the most effective way to spend. That said, personally it has felt much more gratifying to stop using a car and take up biking and public transportation.

They absolutely are. Three cameras above the rear view mirror are kept clear by the wipers.

Just because the bleeding is less worse than it was in the early 2000s doesn’t mean the bleeding is good.

No. The areas burned in the Amazon are replaced by grazing and farming fields, which are vastly less effective at locking in carbon. They’re also not a replacement for lost ecosystems.

It's a little surprising that even with a two-speed Gearbox the Taycan has neither better range nor low range 0-60 acceleration than the Tesla P100D (which has the same size battery). Obviously spec comparisons aren't the whole story and the handling and high-range acceleration may be better on the Taycan. Looking forward to seeing more comparisons and already glad to see more EV models in this category.

Edited incorrect comment about top speed.

The Amazon does not burn naturally. Fires there are man made to clear land for agriculture.

Definitions here "wildfire, defined as largescale forest loss resulting from the burning of forest vegetation with no visible human conversion or agricultural activity afterward". There is clear agricultural activity immediately shown after the vast majority of Brazilian fires. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/361/6407/1108.ful...

Blaming NGO's is ridiculous gaslighting. Agriculture and forestry drive Brazil's forest loss. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/361/6407/1108.ful...

Bolsonaro has clearly encouraged deforestation. No other recent Brazilian political leader been so explicit about it. He has also encouraged harassment and hate towards natives living in forested areas. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/19/jair-bolsonaro...

His explanation is misleading. These are man-made fires caused by massive deforestation. Sources:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-why-amazon-rainfores...

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/361/6407/1108.ful...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/22/photos-her...

These are man-made fires driven by large-scale deforestation. Calling them wildfires is misleading.

Your first point is misleading. Satellite imagery and in the ground evidence clearly shows that the fires are almost exclusively driven by humans. Not wildfires. This is conscious deforestation at a massive scale. The dry season has made the problem worse, but it is an unusually dry season due to climate change. Bolsonaro has definitely encouraged deforestation.

Where is this true? https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=natural_g...

Just because there stranded natural gas exists doesn't mean the market prices are below zero.

The total cost of ownership trend for electric vehicle declining. Not only in energy costs, but most drastically on manufacturing costs. Estimates like BNEF’s show that manufacturing costs will reach parity with internal combustion vehicles within the next decade.

Sounds low. I’m sure it’s at least an order of magnitude higher for me.

They've obviously put a lot of work on this, but the drawn out long transitions are horrible and really take away from the images that should be the focus of the experience.

Water which is permanently and irreversibly contaminated, which is not the case for lithium extraction.

Not true. Flaring of natural gas will happen until it’s prohibited, as it has since the inception of the industry. Building pipelines and chemical plants is not viable in most of the cases where gas is flared.

Makes me think of Dawkins' demonstration of eye evolution, where he shows the usefulness of even simple photo-receptor designs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwew5gHoh3E

This is sad. It should be an option when using 1x displays.

"20-30 years"