"computronium" is bullshit. What we are spreading everywhere is order. If you think about it before life emerged everything was just growing in entropy. Life keeps the local entropy low. Intially it was singular cells, later evolved into multicell organism, animals and finally humans. Compared to other species humans not only are ordered as organisms but started spreading order everywhere in form of buildings and products of our civilizations. We gotten increasingly good at that up to a point where we can arrange a limited number of atoms the way we want. The problem is that we cannot just change anything into a useful computer. One could say that a rock is a computer which computes itself but it doesn't mean it can do anything useful. It can only compute itself as there is no order to start off of. We will increase number of computers even more and start infusing them in wierder and weirder places but computronium belongs on the shelf with other sci-fi concepts which cannot exist in reality.

What kind of "got ya" moment is this? Batteries require fuckton of rare resources (at least chemical one like li-ion, slightly different with those liquid salt ones etc. but they have yet to scale up in production). You can deploy them on some scale (single houses, smaller towns) but it's unrealistic to think it's a solution viable at nation or global scal.

Problem is energy density and it has no simple solution. Yes, you can convert water tower into little battery but how much energy is it even going to store? Quick napkin math based on typical water tower from Google (50m in height, 4 million litres) gives us only about 555 kWh. The less energy storage we need, the better. Hydrogen could replace gas for on demand power but it's inefficient to turn power into it and back. Wind sometimes blows, sometimes doesn't just like with the sun. I'm hearing geo-thermal constantly but I have yet to hear how is it supposed in countries where there isn't that much heat in the ground compared to eg. Iceland where they have fuckton of it. Wave has yet to prove itself unless you talk here about tidal power. Batteries - energy density problem, resources problem in case of chemical ones. Biochemical - never heard of that one, you're free to drop some sources. Each of those solutions comes with problems of their own which aren't that simple to mitigate. Yes, you can use them together and maybe from combining many problematic solutions get somewhat reliable power but that takes effort and many governments don't like effort.

You need:

1. Place for two reservoirs with height difference
2. With natural environment you're willing to destroy It's not all shine and rainbows. If it was that easy we would spam them everywhere.

This may be true but the problem is that gas and solar do not perform the same function. Solar is day only and proportional to amount of sun light while gas is on demand which means you can't just replace gas with solar.

>it's not like you feel that you have any less freedom here than elsewhere

The important part is "feel". Chinese governemnt makes sure that as long as you are "law-abiding" citzen you can fuck around and they don't bother you. The freedoms disappear like a puff of smoke if they don't like you and the problematic part are the reasons they may not like you.

It's probably right but not the way many people may think. By 2026 AI will be generating bottom 90% of content which isn't the part people look for. Top content will remain exclusively human-made for probably at least a decade.

As a person who have seen their fair share of scientific papers - not much of an improvement. Scientific papers use very specific language and structure which already makes extracting information like this very easy. Also most papers are information-dense so it's hard to make them short but it also points out to something that would be actually use case for AI - explaining and elaborating of the content of papers because it is at least sometime the case that new information is thrown at you with links to other sources and reading next 60 papers to fully comprehend the one you're reading right now isn't time efficient.

1. Eastern and Central Europe
2. This area is part of European Plain. It's as flat and low as it gets in Europe.

Somewhat true. One of my profs wanted initially to work in a financial firm but at the end said fuck it. Wall Street will (or at least should if not even must) loose importance so we should free up more potential engineers.

The less people need to do other jobs the mor engineers you can have. Not everyone can be an engineer but there is more people who can be engineers than those that actually become engineers.

How is your system and culture of work perceived by younger generation? Are they dissatisfied with it or did they already bought into it and it's a Stockholm syndrome? I don't know how much in line with reality my opinion is but I'd expect that your government will sooner than later introduce UBI but living only off of it will be frowned upon and there will be peer pressure to work in bullshit jobs. 10 years for automation of most jobs isn't realistic. It may seem possible from the point of view of an office worker but manual jobs are very far from getting automated.

I study physics and probably all of the people from my generation within STEM fields are at least partially aware that full automation is a matter of time though eg. my sister who is also STEM student is probably oblivious to the idea so the spectrum is wide. General sentiment is that most jobs will be automated within realistic period of 20-30 years, not <10.

My sample for older generation is narrow as it's hard to find people like this who are both willing to talk about this stuff and are within my contact circle. I know my mom cannot comprehend the idea of full automation and cannot believe there will be a point of no jobs for people which I think is a view shared by many people of her age. I am suspecting that there is many older people with critical case of crab mentality who will do anything to slow down automation "because if they worked then everyone has to" and are willing to create a system of bullshit jobs just to force people to "work".

>You never heard of supervolcanos? You never heard of naturally occurring forest fires?

You have one task - find me a graph of the last 150-200 years of CO2 concentration with significant peak caused by natural catastrophe. The only way you can prove to me that extreme natural disasters change global climate is to show me the graph that proves it. I say they don't and have shown you a graph which, if you were correct, would have shown CO2 concetration peak in 1980. The worst volcanic eruptions we know of cause several years of less sunlight at worse and left no lasting effect.

>There is NO correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the earth's temperature.

False - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-average-temperature-of-Planet-Earth-and-the-concentration-level-of-CO2-in-the-Earths_fig4_325914607

Here you go, correlation.

>What happened to the climate cultists screaming about "global cooling" and the upcoming man-made ice-age during the 1980s and 1990s? OH YEAH, DIDN'T HAPPEN. What happened to Al Gore's "temperature hockey stick"? OH YEAH, DIDN'T HAPPEN. What happened to the prediction in 2009 by Al Gore and many other climate clowns that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by 2014? OH YEAH, DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Where are papers that said that? I don't care what some randos said at some point. You seem to not understand the difference between scientific community and the activist community. Most scientists aren't activists. Activists may or may not overexagerate what scientists said.

"I've disproven by observation what some activist said which means the climate change doesn't exist" - no, bro, that's not how this works.

Also past performance does not predict future performance. You cannot say that even if someone was 100% wrong in the past that it means he'll be 100% wrong in the future.

>Do you know why so many academic studies agree with the cult of climate change? Because if the people applying for climate research grants disagree with the status quo, they don't get funding.

Which isn't true because that's not how scientific studies work. You don't do studies like "Proving that climate change doesn't exist". You do stuff like "Study of existance of the climate change". There is no results before the study. You can easily frame it however you like and then publish whatever comes out. There is no questionare about your views on your research topic. You just need to show there is a reason to reasearch something. It's against scientific methods to approach a problem with bias about the conclusion. Anything goes as long as you follow scientific protocol and don't make up shit. It's that easy. If some dumbass goes around saying that he doesn't get funding because they don't like his research he's lying and probably has a case of scientific misconduct against him.

I reread your comment and noticed this bullshit:

>One major volcanic eruption puts more green house gases into the atmosphere than humans have during the entire span of human civilization.

Now show me on this fucking graph when did the eruption of Mount St. Helens happen? Were the fuck is it? If it's so fucking huge compared to human source then why can't we fucking see it on a CO2 concetration graph? There should be a fucking peak in 1980 if you were right but there is none.

Also:

>The earth was far warmer in medieval times before humans even had an industrial civilization. What caused the warming then? The earth was even warmer during the era of ancient Rome.

Have you seen this fucking graph? Where did that "warmer" period go? Where is it?

Honestly I should have originally read first half of your comment before, not just the second half, as it contained the easiest bullshit. You just pull those "facts" out of your ass which are proven wrong by two graphs based on peer reviewed studies and pretend like "owned the libs" or whatever is your favourite term.

Bro, I literally study physics and currently have physics of weather and climate classes and a simple graph of CO2 absorption spectrum, CO2 levels and Earth's energy balance prove your wrong. Since the start of industrial revolution CO2 level grew by over 30%. It's not like there is that many of it in the atmosphere as if we were to compress it on sea level to standard pressure you get barely 3 metre high layer. It's fairly small amount. Increase in CO2 levels correlates with estimation of industrial emissions. There was no other significant sources at that time other than human industries. Then what follows is imbalance in energy received by Earth which is just on average +1 W/m^2 which causes increase in total energy stored on the surface of the earth which we observe as increase of temperature. It's not that fucking hard to understand. The longer we do measurment's the less we observe effects of Sun's activity because it turns out the Sun is quite stable and it's energy output doesn't really change. Earth's climate is a very complex dance of many effects and small alterations do change a lot. Over 30% increase in CO2 concentration isn't insignificant for a gas which has a lifetime of thousands of years in the atmosphere we reached such high increase because there isn't a lot of it in the atmosphere.

You could have literally chosen a more sane stance that effects of climate change aren't that signinficant and it's not really a problem but instead you've gone full crazy lying that climate change isn't real which is only true if you ignore 96% consensus in the scientific community and the overwhelming amount of scientific papers that support this consensus. Science isn't politics, if you lie but your lie will be discovered. People who deny climate change either have stakes in biggest polluters or are stubborn idiots railed up by said people who can't accept that changes need to be made.

People will search for any solution not fight the problem they created.

The fact that it has been proven by research multiple times does though.

People who don't have a clue also don't have a clue about most technology. It's not that hard to figure out looking at estimates for compute of human brain that our ML models are very inefficient which is why we got so much gains currently. Current growth in ML is like Moore's Law in semiconductors in 70s - everyone knew back then that there is a lot of room to grow but you could only get there through incremental changes.

Australia moves a fuckton of cargo and people by trains already. Road trains are objectively worse in every circumstance except when it costs too much to put railway somewhere and I'll make an educated guess that they don't contribute that much to the problem of emissions as they go to low pop density areas.

Primary remover of emissions from aviation in Australia should be high speed rail. Not all routes can be replaced by trains (I assume because of the size of australia there is a lot of those small plaines going to many remote locations) but the most emissions come from the busiest routes. Brisbane-Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne-Adelaide high speed rail corridor should be a priority for Australian government. They should reach out to some known operators to get it built quick because 2065 deadline of their current plan (without Adelaide) is a joke. Either Renfe, SNCF or JR (better not CRRC to avoid China dependence) would be probably more than willing to take that contract and do that in half of that time or less.

I did not mean that trains are a big contributor because they run on fossil fuels but rather that road and plane traffic needs to be switched to electric trains because while switching to trains will already yield significant emission reduction the emissions from trains will also need to be removed. One could argue that trains could run on hydrogen but that's inefficient and incurs many new problems.

At the end of the day automation will prevail and the question isn't if but when. It doesn't matter what people say or think as the economics will settle this. There is a simple proof of that based on two axioms (we assume it's extremely unlikely they are wrong):

1. There is no job where there cannot exist a robot which will be able to replace a human.
2. AGI can exist

As such we just need a robot and a system intelligent enough to run it. If you can build a supply chain run by only robots which builds robots in a robot factory faster than exisiting robots are thrown out you get a system which without any human input can output robots capable of replacing every human in their job (we assume AGI, and human-like capable robots have been reached).

It's reasonable to belive that transition to full automation is a form of phase transition of human civilization (phase transitions are a wider thing than just change of phase of physical substances). Similar to how when ice melts into water there is this additional amount of energy which doesn't go into heat but into breaking up the solid structure there may be additional amount of effort needed to go switch to full automation.

There is seven actually - electric trains. As per Wikipedia 17% of Australian emissions come from transportation and while Australia seems to be quite big on trains their electrification is lacking to say the least. Also while electric vehicles cut down emissions it shouldn't be ignored how resource heavy they are and replacement 1-to-1 of ICEs to EVs isn't the way (not even talking about myriad of other problems EVs inherit from ICEs).

That's a long way to say that you're right on the principle that your opinion cannot be wrong. Edit: bruh. He blocked me.