The problem is that in places where condensers make enough water are places which doesn't need them.

TLDR: Ponzi. If it's not Ponzi, believe it or not, still Ponzi. It's crypto after all.

In EU. Idk how did you come up with all-new rail system. With 2030 goal it will be mostly improving what already exists. Demonopolization of rail market, ERTMS level 2 rollout, digital automatic coupling, increased electrification and restoration of less used lines, some new projects (eg. Rail Baltica) etc. It's all coming together.

We're literally working right now on switching to trains/ships - 30% by 2030, 50% by 2050. It is completely possible.

Heavier trucks mean either less cargo or more load per axle. Less cargo means more trucks. Either way you end up with more damage to roads and that's without even mentioning the positives steming from putting shit on trains.

Electric trucks will fuck up roads even more than normal trucks. Put that shit on trains.

Well, I just want to point out to you that you've just described most of non AI art that is being created today but you wouldn't say that an artist learning from works of other is plagiarizing, would you? AI isn't going to take away the ability to create from human artists - it's just going to give the ability to create to people not as talented. The final goal is to automate everything such that work is no longer neccesary. This will mean that there will be a period where many people will not be able to do the thing they want for profit but after that they'll get to do all that without worrying about being profitable - and that includes artists. Engineering has nothing do with culture just like making money has nothing to with creating art. Making money is bussiness and

>Business is not culture

Tell engineers they should carve metal parts by hand instead of using CNC mills. Not everyone has time or skill to learn how to draw. Your comment is pure neo-luddism.

You need to allow yourself to dream bigger. At some point we will create models able to create new styles. Also it's a potential job for artists to be employed just to create things to teach AI on them.

Yes, you are crafting. If you just generate an image and without anything else you say it's art then it's not because there was no artistic intent. But if you choose between images, tweak those generated, change parameters then the AI is just a tool which let's you express a vision you have in your mind. The effective image will be art because you had an artistic intent. Not everyone is manually skilled enough to be able to express their idea by their own hands. I can't draw for shit but I know how to use some simpler image editing software and can run Stable Diffusion so I can make art of my own. I will not claim it's comparable to works of normal artists but it is art nonetheless.

They even filtered out NSFW. NSFW was why like half of the users use SD v1 in the first place.

Idk which part of your comment causes it to get deleted so I'm not going to cite any of it.

ppms are not important for interpretation of the total energy imbalance. The actual number I can find quickly is 0.47+-0.1 W/m^2. That's the energy flux of the surface of the Earth on average. It clearly indicates that the climate is warming. It's also a known fact that CO2 largely is responsible for that imbalance. I have no clue why you brought up bunch of loosely related numbers. Where even did "2 ppm yearly increase === 1W/M2" come from? That's ridicoulous rate of change.

Heat flows easily near the ground. It's not a proof that CO2 doesn't cause global warming.

Then you did not understand the point I made - it wasn't about the effect of said phenomenon on global warming but rather that atmosphere is more complex than some air over a spring.

Sources for CO2 vs intelligence:
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/ehp.1510037
https://www.gwern.net/docs/co2/2015-stafford.pdf
Video explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nh_vxpycEA&ab_channel=TomScott
Now imagine schoolroom effect but global.

Carbon capture can only start being deployed when will have a clear plan to remove all sources. Currently we are still adding more and it will end up as nothing more but a reason to pollute more. Removal of almost all of the emissions will be funded by societies while companies will privatize profits.

That's just wrong on so many levels. CO2 adds very little to overall energy balance - like <+1W/m^2 average over the year. All the additional heat over spring will disperse through convection because you cannot compare unisolated system (air over spring) and (semi)isolated system (Earth's atmosphere). Also influence of CO2 isn't that straightforward - it causes troposphere to heat up while causing stratosphere to cool down so one random paper about incomparable system cannot explain it's function. Even putting aside effect on climate - 600 ppm of CO2 causes 10-15% decrease in measured intelligence in humans so you may not lose a lot but others may not want to.

This sub is filled with unhinged claims not backed by anything other than user's imagination. Not that it's the worst but some people really need to stop thinking of technology as magic.

EU has deep pockets. We can manage both and we already give a lot. Also you may not be aware but all the long term heavy lifting will be mostly done through EU funding as Ukraine will probably join the EU.

Let's break it down without wishful thinking:

>Things that should happen in the 2020s for continued hope for rapid technological development:
>
>First self-driving car (level 4)

Maybe but I have my doubts if current approaches to ML are sufficient.

>"Flying cars" available in some large cities

Flying cars are a cluster of American indvidualism and misguided vision of the future from the 50s. Normal cars are already problematic.

>AI that you can talk to.

You can do that already it's just not that great.

>1.5 nm transistors (or equivalent) or better

"1.5 nm" transistors probably. Definitely not 1.5 nm transistors.

>Supercomputer with around 100 exaFLOP (more talk about zettascale)

Highly likely. Intel aims for zetaFLOPS by 2032 but they may be too optimistic.

>petaFLOP graphics card

Possible in tensor ops but not really if we talk about shading units.

>Nanobots in the body are on it's way in some research hospitals

Doubt unless you're talking about specially prepared bacteria.

>At least one 3D printed organ have been successful

Plausible.

>Further breakthrough in radical life extension (LEV less than 10 years away according to Aubrey de Grey)

Nope. Nowhere near. Life extension probably 30 years away.

>100,000+ qubits quantum computer

Plausible.

>Starship successfully reaches orbit, possible lands on the moon

Plausible.

>Things that should happen in the 2030s for continued hope of rapid technological development:
>
>The first humanoid robots are becoming available to consumers, capable of some simple household tasks

Doubt. Probably more smaller robots could happen though.

>Self-driving cars with level 4 are becoming relatively common, basically all new cars sold are largely self-driving, at least level 4

FSD lvl 4 - yes. Common - no.

>VR/AR is widespread and very realistic

Widespread - probably if it stops being prohibitively expensive and takes off. Very realistic - doubt if graphically. Definitely not in anything else (sorry guys, no SAO yet)

>Very good artificial intelligence that you can talk to, indistinguishable from real person, different AI exists with different personalities

Hard to distinguish but not indistinguishable.

>At least one dietary supplement/gene therapy etc has been proven to make people live longer or be in better health for longer

Low probability by the end of the decade.

>Zettaflop supercomputer

Plausible.

>Quantum computers are now commonplace and useful

Maybe common in enterprise and research but definitely useful.

>Nanobots are starting to be fairly common in healthcare

You watched too much scifi with nanobots.

>3D-printed organs are becoming commonplace in healthcare

Plausible.

>Starship lands on the moon and Mars.

Plausible.

>Things that should happen in the 2040s for continued hope of rapid technological development:
>
>Robots are common everywhere. There are very capable household robots and there are humanoid robots that look very human.

Give it 10-20 more years.

>Several treatments are on the market to reverse aging.

Doubt.

>First country to reach longevity escape velocity might happen towards the end of the decade.

Impossible. We'll probably need AGI to help us do the research for that and don't expect it to do that overnight (AGI 2040-2060 but rather sooner by my guestimate)

>A majority of people in the most developed countries will now expect to live long past 100.

Same as above - hard doubt.

>Self-driving cars make up the majority of cars on the road and a lot of them have reached level 5.

Doubt.

>Permanent moonbase now exists and a base on Mars is underway.

Plausible.

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

If I say "Doubt" it mostly means that I don't think technology will progress that fast.

Yeah, maybe in INT4 tensor ops. This is not the same league as Frontier or Aurora.

Maybe in USA it will be like this but elsewhere public healthcare incentivises providing them to the public as they'll mitigate age related diseases. Also if you promise them to people it's easy win as a politician and it's also easy to verify by people if you fullfill this promise.

There should limits to how much bullshit you can put in one comment.

>It can even be demonstrated mathematically for a specific city, but in short: They go from where you don't live to where you don't want to go.

1. You can switch between many routes on PT
2. That's not how PT works. It starts where people leave and goes through areas that people want to reach. That's by definition. If it's not like this where you live than local gov fucked up your PT

>Lost time, energy and investment to different degrees. They have to constantly stop and start. They require massive amounts of infrastructure, and space, unless it is a subway. Trains require stations, rights of way... And buses effectively occupy a ton of road space as they constantly stop and block a lane for up to a minute. Even if 30 seconds, assuming a 30kmh or 20 mph zone, that is 250m plus bus length plus safe space. Or like more than 25 cars. The frequency has to be 5 min max for a service to be acceptable, but then you get plenty of empty space on off peak.

And roads for cars take no space? Are they built and maintained for free? And you go max speed all the time? One bus takes the area of ~5 cars while taking in the amount of people that would otherwise occupy dozens of cars. You seem to be unfamiliar with the idea of a bus bay so your whole "bus blocks my lane" goes to trash not even mentioning that if people chose the bus they wouldn't be stuck in traffic. Acceptable frequency of service is 30 minutes not 5 and any higher frequency should be demand based. Frequency can vary throught the day.

>Most of my life I could beat the public service using either my car or my bicycle. Sometimes even walking. And not just in time, also in cost, and the car is a subsidy to the government in Europe. Moving people around in electric cars would be way way more efficient in energy than most electric trains or buses, not to speak of diesel ones. But there would be a space problem in the center of large cities, as they would not be able to accept so many cars. That is the main benefit of subways, they move a lot of people,and can use tunnels, plus onboarding and outboarding is so much faster.

Source: You made it the fuck up. Cars are neither space efficient nor energy efficient nor resource efficient. Trains and buses are efficient because they are big and bicycles because they are light and small. Cars are a huge costs to every government. The main benefit of subways is that they are trains which have frequent stops while being grade separated.

>I love trains, but there is a reason they are expensive to build, operate, and use.

Trains are expensive because they are big and operate for way longer while being produced in lower amount and with tighter tolerances. They are cheaper to operate than car infrastructure and are easily cheaper to use.

>Crypto.com, Coinbase

Those are tech bro companies, not tech companies.

Nah, it's probably around OG Intel 5 nm (before rebranding). TSMC's naming scheme is disingenous but they aren't that much behind if you look at transistor density.

What? How is that relevant to the topic?

TSMC isn't approaching 1 nm - they are approaching "1 nm". This name has nothing to do with any dimension of their transistors as it's only a marketing name.

That is true that we need the energy from the sun for that order to appear. Idk if it's called like this in English but I know it as "energy stream" (after translation) from thermodynamics lecture I attended. We are limited by the amount of energy there is but from our perspective the energy is "endless" so it doesn't make sense to bother yourself with heat death of the Universe.