fizigura

5 ms·

1.
by fizigura 3y ago
Not sure where you're being asked to believe that beyond a single thread contribution. I've argued your point earlier in this thread and agree that they are "widely accepted", so you may be barking up the wrong tree. Nev
2.
by fizigura 3y ago
Maybe, maybe not. But it describes an answer to your "why on earth" question. People may have different preferences from yours.
3.
by fizigura 3y ago
Security-concious people like to keep the complexity low of things that are involved in their day-to-day activities. Having your car mingle with your phone is kinda the opposite of this.
4.
by fizigura 3y ago
Hm, you are obviously not following what's going on in the fusion space currently. They are continuously churning forward towards a viable design. What "renewables" (with which I suppose you mean solar, hydro and wind) have g
5.
by fizigura 3y ago
"connected" vs "compatible with" Tbf. 25% connected is huge. If you just jump into your car to quickly do groceries or pick up your kids, you may not be interested in connecting your phone to your car, even if you really
6.
by fizigura 3y ago
> There hasn't been any revolutionary new features in android since shortly after launch really. Not visibly. But the tech stack has changed substantially. I'd find it quite an achievement if the UX has largely stayed the same
7.
by fizigura 3y ago
> Apple has undergone a similar ossification. > I think it's just something that happens to companies that get a certain size. The Process becomes more important than the Product. Why change it if it's working well? Keep doi
8.
by fizigura 3y ago
If you compare the Android from 2008 and the Android from 2023 then you'd soon agree that within these 15 years, the whole thing was re-invented multiple times. And I'm not talking the UX, which has already changed substantially,
9.
by fizigura 3y ago
The basics of human history show that these kinds of predictions are sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and being too sure about them is usually the wrong way to do about things. We'd all still live in caves with that attitude.
10.
by fizigura 3y ago
That's how research works. The first fission experiments couldn't power half a small country either. When you listen to the guys from this original article then you'd know that for 10-20bn USD you could likely build a real po
11.
by fizigura 3y ago
Farmland is literally converting solar energy into sugars. It's natures solar plants. Sure, you can get a bit of shade for your cattle. But the hundreds of millions of acres used for crops are directly competing for sunlight with your
12.
by fizigura 3y ago
Well, most land is either farmland, forest or desert. Forest is out of the question for any solar installations unless you want to cut down the trees. Desert is not easily accessible for most parts of the world and provides terrible conditi
13.
by fizigura 3y ago
We know the equations for flight. Why didn't they just build a 787 in the 40s already? Oh, is it because the technology didn't exist and first had to be developed, in incremental refinements? Initial airplanes didn't even fly
14.
by fizigura 3y ago
Solar farms on farmland? That won't scale to the energy needs of 8bn+ people if we still want to keep feeding them. Especially a non-vegetarian diet.
15.
by fizigura 3y ago
The same was said 20 years ago about solar power. Then some countries stepped up the subsidies game and booom, prices fell dramatically since suddenly everybody wanted a piece of the cake. And competition drove this all down. All you need i
16.
by fizigura 3y ago
For a few billion USD you could build a real power plant of this type. Sounds expensive, but consider how much money nuclear fission did cost initially, and how much money we burn on other stuff, then it's not unthinkable to have someb
17.
by fizigura 3y ago
They currently run a bad-ass heatsink (which is one of the main challenges of this project, i.e., how to cool it), but eventually you will use that heat to convert it into electricity, yes. For the German-speaking crowd here, the Alternativ