@readbeanicecream I think the economy is largely going to make the decision. Lab-grown meats are going to get better and cheaper until most feedlot meat can’t compete anymore. You’ll still have the aspirational meats, but it will still be debatable whether they’re worth the extra money other than bragging rights.
Being antivax falls into the category known as “a danger to yourself and others.”
@BrerChicken Quote checks out, since a ball of dung a pretty good comparison to almost anything to do with hydrogen.
@Detry 10…9…
I was asked a couple years ago what’s keeping us from having walking, talking robots that can at least pass as human to a drunk guy, this is the tech that I named. I figured we’d have good language and voice models by then (and we pretty much do), but the movement of biological systems is really hard to emulate with servos or other actuators. Muscles have the quality where they get thicker as they get shorter and can do so continuously. That goes a long way to making a face move in a realistic way.
We’ve had artificial muscles for some time, but they either require high energy, need to get hot to contract (and are therefore slow to cycle), or require dangerously high voltages. This one solves the high voltages problem by going miniature. You can get the high fields you need in much smaller voltages that way. It’s still early days, but this could be a game changer.
This seems like a poorly designed experiment to me. People providing partial information about a word that’s “on the tip of their tongue,” would be expected to make wrong guesses. If they could make the right guesses, then there are good odds that they would be able to reconstruct/recollect the word. You could just as easily interpret this as the word having been “misfiled” so that its recall is blocked by incorrect information associated with it.
I get TOT far more often than I would like, but there’s almost always a word that I get to eventually.
deleted by creator
@SmolderingSauna Sorry, I’m coming from a PhD in chemistry, and that’s BS. There is more than one process to recycle the the metals in batteries, and they’re all >98% recovery. Atoms are atoms. They’re not alchemically trasmuted into other elements.
The reason that they’re being used is because they’re still good. When they’re no longer good, they can be recycled. It’s just going to take another decade before we have a substantial need for recycling them. That’s not a bad thing.
@SmolderingSauna That’s a false argument that the fossil fuel lobby loves to bring up. The reason there isn’t widespread recycling of EV batteries is because 99% of all the EV batteries that have been made are still in operation. The batteries typically outlive the cars, and are put to secondary uses for stationary applications.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/hanjiro-ambrose/the-second-life-of-used-ev-batteries/
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-storage/used-ev-batteries-are-storing-solar-power-at-grid-scale-and-making-money-at-it
If you want to ring your hands about battery waste, the US throws out about 54 megawatt-hours worth of lithium battery storage each month in the form of single-use electronic vapes.
@burgersc12 So the answer is no, you can’t. “Extinction” is not a part of it. Let’s not use hyperbolic language. It hurts our cause, and gives the fossil fuel lackeys ammunition.
@Calcharger I saw more opinion than science, tbh. I’m not sure editorials belong here.
@burgersc12 Can you provide a peer reviewed paper that makes that prediction about extinction?
@Calcharger Kind of hard to take a video seriously when it’s just a series of clip art and stock video. Feels like a business major did it who knows nothing about the science that would be involved, or worse, it’s part of the tidal wave of partially AI generated, factually questionable, scienceoid spam that’s flooding youtube. This could have been a spam email.
@Girlparts Can somebody get the the original paper and report on what concentration they were using. Whenever I’ve compared lab results with environmental measurements, the labs are using >1,000,000-fold higher concentrations of particles to get a response. It’s never immediately obvious because the two kinds of studies typically use different units.
The other question I have is the particle size. Their largest particles in the study are 1µm. That’s generally the smallest that I’ve been able to find reported in environmental measures. Either it’s just not possible to detect unlabelled particles smaller than that (which as an analytical chemist, I doubt), or particles at that size range break down quite quickly do the exponentially increasing surface area/volume ratio. If anyone has links to papers that look that far down the size scale, I’d appreciate them.
My battery cover it taped shut… because I broke the little latch that holds in it.
@Q67916tJ6Z0aWM I see you have some science-deniers giving you had hard time. Beef production is incredibly inefficient, doesn’t produce any new nutrients that didn’t go into the cow, and produces huge amounts of greenhouse gases. Whether the solution is red algae or lab-grown meat, I can’t say, but it’s going to get harder and harder to justify. Of course, the “but-my-burger!” snowflakes are going to have a melt down, but it’s coming.
@readbeanicecream