asdaaaaaaaa

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j7ps0hi wrote

> "Boom" by Overture

It's literally just a model right now. Usually takes a bit longer than that to develop an aircraft, test parts, get manufacturing set up, get it approved/qualified by the FAA, then sell it. Not to mention how many companies and "idea" planes pop up already.

Unfortunately, without an engine or half-way working prototype, they haven't really even taken the first steps in development, at least not the challenging ones. If they already had made progress, I'd say they have a chance, but it's still way too early to have any hope.

1

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j7k5l42 wrote

> It's almost like a single ~5 year window is all that's generally been allowed to hold office since the late 1980s.

It's almost like politics heavily operate as an isolated group of individuals who all work to keep the status quo for each other and keep others out. Good luck getting someone who's doesn't fit one of two molds even halfway to getting elected.

1

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j6t4rjo wrote

Did you let them get established before letting them handle extreme weather? It's wise to protect and sorta baby younger/less mature plants/trees and give them a bit more attention. Generally the older a tree is, the more it can stand certain things like freezing temps and such.

2

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j6nby45 wrote

> Not to say this isn’t very positive and reducing a problem vastly is great. But a coating that will wear off over years is pretty much a Band-Aid.

Not if you're a company who advertises it as "environmentally safe" and reaps the profits unfortunately. I can see this being used in that way, and this is a perfect advertisement for that. As you said, doesn't really "help" the environment or problem at all aside from making things last a bit longer before they start shedding microplastics. Doesn't mean a company won't use this with manipulative advertising.

I mean, it's been what humanity as a whole has been doing forever. We discover some amazing perfect new solution and invest heavily, until 20 years later we learn it's not as good/safe as we initially thought.

5

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j6lnl4s wrote

>If we're lucky.

Sadly, that's been the hopes/mindset this entire time it seems. Still blows my mind I grew up learning about this, and here we are so many years later still not really doing much. Yes, we're adopting some cleaner energy, but I'd imagine the majority is still fossil fuels and polluting heavily. That still doesn't get us past major issues we know we'll be facing eventually, food shortages, refugee crisis, collapsing countries. And we all know humans do extremely well with high stress, scarcity driven situations.

The best I can hope for is that it doesn't get too bad, too fast. Hopefully we have time to adapt however we can and don't fuck it up even more.

22

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j6c2dk4 wrote

Agreed with your first sentences. I seriously doubt bringing "awareness" to climate change is changing many minds at this point. Most people know what it is, kids will learn about it, and will make up their mind. I think that energy/time could be better spent actively impacting the environment in a positive way, or contributing something other than "awareness" for something as widely known as climate change at least.

−14

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j68k9fz wrote

I think there just needs to be better education on driving during shit weather. I cannot tell you how many pickups I see stuck that can handle the snow, if the owners would throw a bit of weight in it or some chains/snow tires. I shouldn't be doing better than pickups in my shitty, cheap 4 door with manual windows and locks.

Modern cars are incredibly capable (up to a point, as you said) provided owners actually know what to do, how to drive, and how to prepare/handle poor weather from the start. As you said, people who've never learned or dealt with extremely poor conditions can be way too overconfident. I'd rather more people stay home/not drive in bad weather than a bunch of people going out who have no clue how to handle it.

2

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j664nzf wrote

> True story I used chatGPT to generate hot takes/cancel twitter threads and then used chatGPT's answer to create an opposite thread, you could in theory repeat this ad nauseam.

What do you think bot farms that generate content/upvotes/views already do? That's basically it, you generate believable interactions between machine learning algorithms to get revenue. The biggest thing wasn't making this happen, it's been done since the 90's. The biggest move was allowing your average person to type a few sentences and make it happen, which is why ChatGPT is so huge. That's the reason there's so many controls, because your average idiot could accidentally do quite a bit of damage if they don't understand the repercussions, or just don't care.

The internet is already largely made up of bots talking to bots in some form or another.

1

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j637vzq wrote

Getting/using the information isn't hard, just think of how many hands your social/information goes through whenever you apply for something. It's more that once you use that information for profit and such, you're now a pretty big target. Much more so than just selling stolen goods, theft, etc. Plenty other ways to make money with those skills without involving federal documents.

6

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j5xuubj wrote

I'll be honestly surprised if this is stopped instead of just being quietly picked up by governments now they can see the potency of such a tool combined with a national database. Combining something like this with proper security controls/automated kiosk things, you can literally tell people to leave things like secure locations without them even seeing a person.

If a company can sell this to a government and get leniency/immunity from lawsuits like this, they'll become pretty much essential to national security, a strong position to be in.

15