Recent comments in /f/Futurology

wheelontour t1_jdljux0 wrote

I read about this cell a couple of days ago and I got super excited because the article mentioned that the battery could deliver that power at 25C (25 times the capacity of the cell, or 100 Amperes for a 4Ah cell) but I have just read the press release of the manufaturer and it says the cell can deliver that energy at 25°C - degrees Celsius... thats a big difference.

4

BadMon25 t1_jdljn9i wrote

I don’t think AI will ever be able to completely replicate human emotions, from what I’ve read it cannot comprehend the flurry of emotions we go through everyday, from nihilistic thoughts to simple frustrating things. No matter how similar we may be to some people, we are still very unique in our human experiences and feelings. The brain is a powerful, yet confusing ass function.

4

jeremy-o t1_jdljmke wrote

We are definitely just biological computing machines! That wasn't really at question, if you consider the science. What is at question is how soon we can replicate that. Some would say we're close. I think we're a lot further than we assume, purely based on the complexity of the human brain's neural network vs. e.g. our best AI models.

Considering the "soul" or spirit irrelevant isn't really futurism. It's more like, existentialism or even nihilism, so we're talking 19th/20thC philosophy.

14

birdsbridges t1_jdlfyy6 wrote

No. Humans make AI, and humans are biased. All you will do is make an AI that tries to convince others of your perspective, because you obviously have it right. Afterall, you've used the AI, corrected the things it said you were wrong on, now it's time for the world.

Either it says what you want, or it says the opposite and you eventually reject it, because there must be some flaw.

We see it with GPT and other AI. They're neutered from saying anything offensive, and refuse to offer positive summaries of things ideologically opposed to the creators'.

1

r2k-in-the-vortex t1_jdla9dh wrote

ESA is supporting its share in ISS just fine. Financing common projects over EU is in general a solved problem, that's really not a roadblocker.

But with rise of spacex Ariane model is over and done with, not that it was ever man rated anyway. You can't build a manned spaceflight program entirely of your own, if you don't have a suitable launcher.

At this point, ISS successor, in cooperation with US and others (minus Russia) is sensible. But an entirely EU station simply isn't viable.

5

BroomShakzuka t1_jdl8yhu wrote

Same. I've got a child in progress and we've already nicknamed her "sorry", because of the shitty situation she'll be facing because of human greed.

In terms of discouraging people: my wife and i have gone vegan and are feeling great and enjoying so many good foods, but even suggesting to others that they should try the same gets us so much hate while the freaking carbon footprint of a vegan is nearly twice as low of carnists. I might even get downvotes on this comment, because here comes the preachy vegan. All i want is for us to live in harmony and my unborn child not to have to grow up with massive problems. Sorry not sorry i guess.

2

baddfingerz1968 t1_jdl7kl7 wrote

It's OK. We are all dealing with this most monumental struggle that mankind will ever face in our own ways. I hope you are right...but I have nearly accepted this terrible fate because deep down inside I really believe you are not.

I have been preparing for this for over half a lifetime. I cannot struggle against it any longer along with the other very serious issues I have had to survive for over 30 years. Unfortunately I brought a child into this world in 1990 before I learned of how serious the impending climate catastrophe was, and now I must accept that she could have children, and her children's children will have to bear this terrible burden as survival becomes nearly intolerable for most life on the planet.

Do not despair or be ridden with guilt. Even if you remove the human element from the equation, all the terrible ways we have abused our only home, this is way bigger and more certain than anything we could have done to ultimately deter it.

Peace be with you.

−1

grundar t1_jdl5z0t wrote

> The EIA LCOE 2022

EIA's projections have changed substantially since 2022.

Compare their projections to 2050 from 2022 (p.15) and 2023 (p.10) (reference case):

  • Solar: up 50% (1,200-1,800TWh)
  • Wind: up 50% (700-1,100TWh)
  • Gas: down 40% (1,800-1,200TWh)
  • Coal: down 40% (500-300TWh)

EIA projections for renewable energy have been consistently revised way up, year after year:

  • 2018 AEO: 1,600TWh renewables, 3,100TWh gas+coal
  • 2020 AEO: 2,100TWh renewables, 2,700TWh gas+coal
  • 2022 AEO: 2,300TWh renewables, 2,300TWh gas+coal
  • 2023 AEO: ~3,300TWh renewables, 1,500TWh gas+coal

5 years ago, the EIA was projecting fossil fuels would out-generate renewables 2:1 in 2050; now, that ratio is reversed in their projections. How likely is it they've finally caught up with changes in power generation and won't revise that again?

For reference, wind+solar+battery are 140% of net new capacity over the last 5 years, and are a similar fraction of net new kWh generated. New gas is indeed being added, but coal is being retired even faster, so net fossil capacity in the US has been declining for a decade.

3