Recent comments in /f/technology

SILENTSAM69 t1_jae9zba wrote

I hate calling it green as it still causes general air pollution. Shipping it is a huge problem. Better to just use the other carbon free sources of energy like renewables, hydro, nuclear, or geothermal, than to burn biomass.

Technically no living organism is a sequestration. Maybe for a human time scale it is, but not the environmental time scale. We could be growing vegetation and treating it as nuclear waste. The best form of long storage being large heavy lawn dart style containers dropped into the north Pacific. Sadly people don't do that with nuclear waste because of public ignorance and the stigma against putting waste in the ocean.

−1

SidewaysFancyPrance t1_jae8gki wrote

For artistic purposes where there is no "right" or "wrong" way to do something, it's great. Like for upscaling a personal photo, but maybe not for a news broadcast showing an AI's prediction of what a crime suspect looks like based on a blurry security cam, where the AI is just pulling from random people's faces it trained on. There are pitfalls to people using/creating/consuming AI-generated data/content without attempting to understand the nuance and implications.

5

judokid78 t1_jae8685 wrote

Well trees do sequester CO2; all be it momentarily until they decompose. But that can be like a couple of hundred years depending on the tree and the environment it grows in.

While burning biomass is at best carbon neutral, shipping it around the world is probably the worst way to do it. The shipping and transportation industry is the largest source of CO2 emissions. Adding to that industry in the name of green energy is misleading at best. Burning locally sourced biomass like some farms do is much better.

Lastly virgin old-growth forests are our best carbon sinks; trees sequestering CO2. Cutting virgin trees to burn as fuel releases previously stored carbon as well as hindering that virgin forest's ability to store carbon.

13

PEVEI t1_jae7pul wrote

This is the same argument from people 5 years ago when the self-driving push was in full swing, until it became undeniable that the last 1%-2% of that hard problem was faaaar more difficult than the preceeding 98%.

I fully expect it to take a similar amount of time for reality to seep through hysteria in this case.

−7

CobainPatocrator t1_jae7gb9 wrote

That assumption that independence = #1 is fraught with assumptions on the needs of the world market. The likelihood that the US can produce the best chips is high. The likelihood it can produce the cheapest/most numerous chips is low. One of those is worth prioritizing, the other is probably not worth the effort, even if it is possible. I'll put my money on impossible given the Chinese are much better at reducing costs.

Not sure what prompted that little rant at the end. I never once mentioned globalism, but alright👍

0

Odysseyan t1_jae7bpx wrote

You can also buy an electric flyable drone with a pilot seat and 30 mins of range. Faster than a car, can go anywhere - why not get one? Oh yeah, the fucking price is about 200.000 and a car gets the job done at the fraction of the cost and is better regulated.

What I'm saying is, Power is cool and all, but if it is not affordable and costs more than the rest of the PC combined, than who the fuck is gonna buy that? Should I pay my rent, or get this GPU? No wonder no one is gonna buy those cards

3