zenzukai t1_jcd6qml wrote

Honestly I think therapist is one of the first on the chopping block. I think automation is the ONLY way to promote better habits effectively.

You'd be better off as sex worker. They'll still be cheaper than a sex-bot for awhile.


zenzukai t1_j9350ug wrote


zenzukai t1_j933wvs wrote

Using MOF (Metal Organic Framework) to bind it. Scaling this would be very expensive. Hydrogen fuel production uses MOFs, building a house out of them economically would be quite the feat.

There have been significant advances in advanced wood materials. Treated and compressed wood can now get as strong as kevlar and steel.


zenzukai t1_j3m3fzc wrote

There still is 'junk' DNA, but large sections of a chromosome is structural. Allows for histone binding and conformational changes. This isn't new or groundbreaking. This paper is defining properties for classifying and labeling functional regions that will predict these changes.


zenzukai t1_j1wu6s7 wrote

Living organisms also error correct most single base changes. Also if a mutation is non-viable that eliminates many types of mutations from being reproduced.

There is no need for a mathematical information theory to rationalize mutation rates because natural selection has already.

This paper is an extension of Maxwell's Demon thought experiment.


zenzukai t1_j1bk4sw wrote

Like usual, they don't even mention recycling batteries. What is the carbon cost associated with recycling old batteries into new ones? Not sure because it isn't at an industrial scale. Yet entirely dismissed by articles like this.

Did the article address mutli-dwelling infrastructure? The effects of exploding mineral demand?

I know the energy economics of batteries and EVs, and I know the recycling costs of the battery lifecycle put a huge '?' on the real costs.

These hard limits imposed so early are going to be reversed. Businesses are going to fail to properly adapt, government funded services are to fail to properly adapt, private individuals aren't going to be able to afford to adapt.

If you think inflation is bad now, just wait until costs across all society run up a vertical wall.

Electric vehicles are the future, no doubt. The problem is ham-fisting them into society will create distortions in the market, and it'll cost much more than we can estimate today.


zenzukai t1_j1axggr wrote

I don't think you've even addressed a single argument he brought up. How does one charge an electric car on a 120V 15A circuit that is available to people who live in condos and apartments?

How about full lifecycle of a battery? There is no infrastructure in place to recycle enough batteries, let alone building the batteries to begin with. It would require mining completely 80% of all known lithium sources, even the sources that we can't refine yet just to replace the vehicles we have.

How about cost? How many people can afford a new vehicle? Basically only the 1%. The 99% will be told by the 1% to eat cake.

Also how do you "make people charge them every day at peak times"? You plan on having a special police force going around ensuring people are following your orders? Don't you think that sounds a bit oblivious to reality? Not just idealistic oblivious, like childish 'don't understand basic reality' oblivious.


zenzukai t1_ivl2xfg wrote

Can't compare preproduction costs to mass production lines. As scale and time progress costs approach material input costs. The number of patents and technology involved will keep things expensive for the first decade max. Newer models will push down older ones. It'll likely get to the point that people will be dumping obsolete robots in the recycling bin.