Well… Its built on statistics and statistical inference will return to the mean eventually. If all it ever gets to train on is closer and closer to the mean, there will be nothing left to work with. It will all be the average…
Which states is it you are referring to? And which countries? And what is it that you think qualifies as being “further left” in this case?
Oh, you are aussie:) i should have guessed by your username.
Ok, for starters, where I live that big yellow thing stops shining. Practically (for electricity production anyways) for almost 6 months of the year and almost totally for 3. And even with heat pumps we still use several MWh of electricity every year to heat our homes. A battery park can keep a city running for 1h. Even those planned in NSW (BESS is it?) would struggle to keep things running for mire than a day. To be clear:
We need more energy storage than can be provided by electric batteries, than can be bought at battery prices and in scales larger than can be produced with any technology current or in the overseeable future. And we needed it yesterday. Any form of low cost, stable, easy to store solution we can use is a huge step forward. Solar is great! But we need the electricity when the sun doesn’t shine. Heat pumps are awesome! But their awesomness is needed when the sun doesn’t shine so much. That is why we need more energy storage solutions.
Summertime there are almost limitless electricity available, but that energy needs to be stored somehow. And with limitless (in practice) efficiency isn’t an issue. Even storing 1% is better than 0%. Regardless of efficiency.
You said it yourself. Still undiscovered. The technology we have today can’t be used to save more than a day or so of electricity. We need to handle months. Finding more energy dense ways of doing it is crucial.
And even if we burn it and put it back in the air, it is still positive, because we won’t have added more from oil. And if we get enough of the stuff we can let the trees grow, which would be a carbon sink.
Step 1: stop using oil. If we use the methane as is, we’ve accomplished this step.
Step 2: scrub carbon from atmosphere. Upping the game and replacing wood for heating would let the trees scrub the atmosphere, creating carbon sinks
Step 3: accelerate. Can processed methsne be stored in energy dense compounds? Like oil was?
Batteries may be more efficient, but we can’t use them to store all the energy we need. And heat pumps still need electricity when there is less renewable electricity available.
Looking at nature, long carbon chains are the way to store lots of energy and being able to use just electricity to get carbon out of the air is a great first step. Capturing the methane will allow us to process it further.
This is the best news regarding energy storage I’ve seen in a long time.
Well, there is a big discussion about nutrition among lupies, so maybe heuristics was on to something this time. On the other hand, in what group isn’t nutrition a topic?
Sorry, didn’t know jokes needed to be geotagged on this instance.
I see the Ukrainian alt army got upgradw on the infantry side.
So “it was only a joke” is also back on the menu? Wow, times are rolling back fast!
Even the term itself is a generalising stereotype. But it we are to have a somewhat serious discussion about it, I’d say It’s a human condition, not a gendered condition. For example, given what is (not) known about our respective genders, you felt the need to explain this.
So stereotyping gender is back on the menu? Are hair color jokes still taboo?
You dropped your /S ;)
I know where you are comming from, however. But the thing is, not doing that isn’t helping any either. And one thing that needs to be said, which isn’t reported on nearly as much as it should, the EU green deal, fit for 55, while it still isn’t enough, is legislation which has passed, which has teeth and which will keep EU working to reduce carbon emissions. And will keep us running as fast as we can to be able to make the cut offs and deadlines.
An LLM once explained to me that it didn’t know, it simulated an answer. I found that descriptive.
I did not in any way mean to suggest sensitivity is not a factor, only to suggest that light sensitivity may be more of a spectrum and that there are persons living in a darker world than others. So, it may not be a person on the top of the bell curve that need more light, but someone on the other end of the spectrum entirely.
Since the top comment in this thread was about needing more light in an already bright room i meamt to say that there might be reasons why people around us prefer 1 or 100000 lumen…
Apparently all eyes are not created equal in ability to transfer light to the retina. Some has narrower or wider fields of vision as well. So, where your eyes may be well adapted to low light levels, others may not be. In a world with no artificial shadows and the sun high on the sky for most of the year, being able to filter out sun light might have been a pro, while now needing lots of artificial lights to see straight.
A flayer shooter with Oz, you say? Well, the lore is there.
But why are they all touching themselves?
You do realise that allready happened? Although the line was vertical. Had you chosen any other country except Germany you might have gotten away with it, but since you did, it asks: Why wasn’t it done so from the beginning?
That’s not a straight line, although it is possible to follow without changing direction😊