So now it's not just "bad CGI idea", it's "bad CGI idea generated by AI".
Next up: people investing billions in said cool looking bad CGI project only to find out none of it works and after wasting half a decade, they'll come to the conclusion that they'll need to invent a large transportation system with metal wheels that will run on a specialized track where you can add or remove carts as needed.
It's so bad that we don't have any of this yet!
Seriously, fuck Elon Musk for getting these scams popularized
This probably isn't going to be available to you then, though it is possible it paves the way for a tooth-replacement treatment. This article seems like bad science communication. The video, tweet, and website they link to all state that they're researching congenital conditions, the inquiry form linked to on the website explicitly states in English they're not considering people who lost their teeth later in life and specifically calls out articles like this one as misinformation.
We are currently receiving a large number of inquiries that differ from the purpose of this research, which is very troubling.
This research is a study of therapeutic drugs for people who are missing teeth due to congenital (from birth) diseases (diseases, etc.).
This research is not aimed at restoring teeth to people who have lost their teeth due to acquired causes, as some news and social networking sites have reported.Additionally, we are not currently recruiting candidates for clinical trials (adult males).
It seems like only missing teeth will regrow (at least in the tested animals), however, that should include both wisdom teeth or otherwise intentionally missing ones.
Eh, we can do the exact same thing with swappable batteries, this isn't a unique selling point.
I know it'll never happen because no one wants to put the work into build the infrastructure, but the appeal of hydrogen to me is the larger energy density compared to batteries. That's ignoring all the other downsides of hydrogen of course, but imo a lot of those are due to lack of commercial interest, there's just not as much money in improving them compared to batteries.
Ideally we just end up with super amazing batteries and never have to worry about storing pressurised gas that loves to escape basically any container.
Edit: Changed introductory wording to be less belligerent. I am sorry if I have caused a significant level of offense.
Just wait for the nuclear shills to flood in and claim that nuclear fission is a sustainable and necessary form of power generation. Some people claim that nuclear fission is a sustainable and necessary form of power generation. It is not. Uranium extraction devastates entire landscapes, the construction of nuclear power plants is too expensive (even for SMRs, as the article explains), ergo electricity prices will climb, it is a hugely wasteful use of so many tonnes of concrete (concrete manufacturing is heavy on the environment too), it creates waste that will still haunt us for hundreds of thousands of years (finding geological structures that are guaranteed to be stable that long is difficult), and relative to the initial construction and set-up effort, they don't provide that much energy. We already have methods that can provide us plenty enough electricity that are entirely sustainable by leveraging large-scale atmospheric aerodynamics as well as the largest nuclear fusion reactor at our disposal (the sun). There's simply no need to go nuclear.
I hate that the conversation is happening on these terms. I hate that we have a bunch of opinionated online "teams" on this issue.
Hey, you know what we need? All of it. Any sort of energy generation that lowers atmospheric emissions in any way we do need. The concept of "nuclear shills" shouldn't exist, the concept of "solar shills" or "hydrogen shills" or "fossil fuel shills" shouldn't exist. The entire conversation is a PR battle by energy corps to get people to buy into marketing so they can get governments to back popular choices so they can get expensive contracts for large infrastructure work.
I hate that we have online keyboard warriors overrepresenting the challenges of one of the contributors to lowering emissions while underrepresenting the challenges of others. Hey, do you think nighttime generation and storage is an issue? Maybe installation costs for domestic solar generation, the state of the grid or the uneven distribution of solar power yields on different territories? Because I do.
And I do think cost and build times for nuclear generators are a problem (which makes it confusing that some countries are dismantling plants that seem to be working safely and are within their expected lifespan, but I digress).
And I do think the impact of hydroelectric power in nearby areas is a problem.
And I do think the open questions for geothermal are a problem.
And I do think the issues with cost, storage and dirty generation of hydrogen are a problem.
And I do think we should be working on all of that. At once. This isn't kids arguing about which game console is better on the backyard, this is a massive existential issue, and would be even if we weren't dealing with a climate change ticking bomb. This report? It's bad news. Any report that tells us any of the ideas we have for weaning off fossil fuels is not working as well as we expected is bad news. Can we all get with that program?
The problem is that "both" isn't a valid option unless a country has unlimited finances.
Otherwise you have to decide on what's the most feasible option and then renewables win big time
I sometimes feel as if the current push for atomic is from the fossil-lobby as they are aware that it either works and they get 10-20 more years to sell oil until the reactors are built - and even if it doesn't work out it still will slow down rollout of renewables
If you have 100 billion to spend on energy producing you have to choose if you want to go all-in with one source or split it up which would move the end of fossil fuels Back further
Not to mention having to buy the radioactive materials from dictatorships and having problems to cool down the reactors with rising temperatures and rivers running dry
I just don't see how atomic isn't a huge gamble that can backfire hard (and I'm not even talking about catastrophic events like Fukushima)
Most countries have unlimited finances. They only have limited real resources like labor, concrete, copper, glass, etc. The fact that we still don't understand this and behave as if the metadata of the economy accurately describes reality puts artificial brakes on the solutions of many problems, climate being one of them.
The problem is that if a country treats money as unlimited and without a cost then inflation will mirror that and people in that country will lose their savings, their job will not pay for their bills anymore and so on
Inflation is a symptom of the lack of some real resource. There are many parts of the economies of many countries where there's unused production capacity which simply "turns more natural resources into more stuff" if more money enters that part of the economy, without producing inflation. It's not "just spend more", it's "spend as much as you can on things that you want done, which aren't limited by real resources."
I found Randall Wray's lectures on the topic to be eye-opening. If what I wrote sounds strange, and it might, I highly recommend watching some of them. There are a few recordings on YouTube.
All good points, and I’m all for pretty much any technological research, but
And I do think cost and build times for nuclear generators are a problem
Thorium is another form of fission generation that has not been commercialized yet. In the real world, maybe it will be better, or maybe it won’t. But fission generation already takes too long to build out, so why switch lanes to a different form of fission generation that also needs more time and money to be commercialized? Nuclear uranium fission generation had its growing pains over the years, as the technology found challenges to address and areas to improve, but thorium has not yet gotten far enough to run into those so there will be additional challenges requiring time, money, further development
If those were decades ago when the future was bright for fission technology, I’d be all over this. However the future is dark and cloudy for fission generation, nightfall may be approaching. The advantages of thorium are not enough to shine a new light, there’s not enough room for improvement to save fission generation, this is just an expensive detour.
This is nonsense. Like someone else said we will need some kind of nuclear power for future space exploration. There are parts of the world that are dark for six months of the year, and plenty of places that don't get enough light for solar to be practical.
Most renewable sources are not consistent enough to be used by themselves, and battery storage isn't practical with current technology. Then there are the concerns with hydro power and biomass and how that affects the environment. I have even been told by leftists that biomass shouldn't be installed as it destroys too many native forests.
Of course the actual best solution is one we don't have the technology for yet: things like nuclear fusion or neutrino capture.
For the record, I disagree with you both and this narrative is also part of the problem in my book. Screw the futurism and longermism of "we need nuclear power for space exploration". We're not talking about that. We're talking about mitigating runaway climate effects and filling the blanks of an alternate energy mix by using complementary tech.
Absolutely let's keep working on nuclear power. Absolutely let's keep working on battery storage, and potential energy storage and thermal storage and wind and geothermal and whatever else we can come up with. And absolutely let's abandon whatever doesn't work or is made obsolete, starting with no longer burning hydrocarbons as soon as we can stop.
There's this air of erudite dilettantism about this chatter that just pisses me off. People sitting by and idly projecting their sci-fi fantasies about colonizing planets or about a fully solar powered planet and feeling smart about it. Given the short-term, impending human cost of this issue, both for climate reasons and for energy scarcity reasons, that just feels gross at this point.
What do you disagree with me? I was trying to back you up up here saying that yes we need nuclear in addition to all the other technologies. I am not saying that you shouldn't use solar, just that it isn't applicable everywhere on earth.
Screw the futurism and longermism of “we need nuclear power for space exploration”. We’re not talking about that.
You should be talking about that. After all climate change is also a future problem. Staying on a single planet isn't safe even if you eradicate climate change, war, disease, and just about everything else. There is pretty much nothing stopping a gamma ray burst or stray blackhole, or any number of other things from killing everyone on this planet. Like yeah climate change is a high priority, but it doesn't make all other issues go away.
Look, I'm just trying to impress something very specific here and I can tell I'm not getting through.
I'm not here to call out people arguing for or against one or another type of energy generation. I'm complaining about the discourse about this being about long term hypotheticals and optimal solutions when we should be in emergency mode.
It's like we're in a burning building and people are having arguments about the cost per year of different types of fire extinguishers. But if I make this point about someone criticising nuclear power it comes across as me "siding" or "shilling" for nuclear power, same if I do it when someone argues against solar power.
But I'm neither. I'm arguing for practicality and immediate action. Because we need it now, not because I just finished reading the Dune books and have some really neat ideas about generation ships.
I've seen opinions very strongly in both directions on here. I'm very pro-nuclear, but the largest issues they face is always bureaucracy. It sucks that an artificial thing is what's stopping then usually, but it is true. We need some protections to keep things safe, but it seems too harsh for nuclear compared to the dangers it presents opposed to the dangers of other power sources.
Absolutely, and it's by design by candid admission of environmentalist organizations and green parties. Their objective was over regulating the industry beyond any rationality and they succeeded.
Maybe you should spend more time outside. Every flavor of nuclear has worse approval ratings than most dirtbag politicians.
I'm seeing reports by antinuclear think tank grifters shoved in my face almost daily...
Why do you think you need to PAY people to oppose nuclear? After seven decades of cockamamie “this time it’s different” schemes most people just moved on.
Anything that makes cycling more comfortable for me people is always a win in my books.
I've always felt that if a saddle needs the rider to wear padded short, it's not the right saddle.
I recently switched to a Selle SMP saddle, and suddenly my hand pains went away, and I'm more comfortable without padded shorts.
But the issue for me, isn't so much pain from sitting, but chaffing/rubbing by ordinary underwear and bottoms. Cycling shorts are just designed to exclude seams where you don't want them.
I wonder if this saddle addresses clothing rub.
Side note, it bothers me immensely that many of the riders in the demo video are rocking side to side. Their bike isn't nearly set up right if they are forced to do that. Like the saddle is too high.
I use it when wearing padded shorts, but I really shouldn't need to wear padded shorts. I may need to get different underwear, so the fabric doesn't bunch up or crease, but that's about it.
When I was riding with a Brooks C15, I pretty much had to wear padded shorts or it felt like I was sitting on a wooden plank. I endured it for thousands of KM until I realized that there are so many better options out there.
My big problem with all of that though is that now I have to do prep work before I can ride the bike. I just want to be able to get on the bike and go, I don't want to have to do stuff.
This is for just riding around on simple terrain and on the quieter roads. Obviously if you're going to go off-road then you need to make some preparations, but that's reasonable. I shouldn't have to put on special gear just to go to the shops.
Thank you for the response! I just started learning how to ride (short distances) and a coworker gave me that piece of advice and I didn't know if they were messing with me or not.
If you are getting a sore arse when riding a bike then your setup is wrong. There is no need for whatever this abomination is, if your "sit bones" are aching then you need to take the time to actually set your bike up properly.
It isn't just about the height you need to adjust the tilt, how far forward or back it is which is also dependant on how much reach you have with your stem and bars. The size of your frame which also affects things like your reach as well. The positioning of your feet on the pedals which is especially important if you are clipping in.
The list goes on and some shitty tilting saddle is not going to magically alleviate poor bike fit, it is just going to move the aches and pains to other areas on your body like your knees or your shoulders.
vast majority of people do not care about having a 'setup'. they are bike bicycle nerds who will spend tons of time and money to get their 'bike fit' right. a proper bike setup is for people who spend $1000s on bikes, not your average consumer who spends under $500 and sees a bicycle as a toy.
they go to walmart, or a bike shop, buy the cheapest bike that looks cool, and ride it. and then stop riding it because it hurts their butt/back/wrists, or they just get bored of it.
That's ridiculous. You don't need to be a bicycle geek to care about the comfort of your commuter vehicle. I'm ten times as geeky about my rollerskates as my bicycle, despite the fact I've spent a hundred times as long on my bike. But I still care about comfort during those hundreds of hours a year on the bike.
Being ignorant of how to use a tool is not anyone else's fault
Sharing education that even a cheap bike can be improved by a proper fit is a good thing. It doesn't require expensive gear to get a comfortable fit, assuming you bought the right size bike in the first place
Do you have to get a custom seat setup for your car? What about your office chair?
Perhaps cyclists have become accustomed to the need for specialty seat fittings because bike saddles are just inherently small, prone to pressure points, rigid and unforgiving.
This innovation looks promising to me, at least as far as reducing perineal numbness and nerve damage (hopefully without the need for ridiculous diaper shorts which I own and love).
Kids is one thing but I'm envisioning a balls version of the stick-in-the-spokes meme, with you writhing in agony in the road until an SUV comes along and puts you out of your misery.
I can't really tell from the visuals but it looks like they don't really get that close together. The two sides seem like they say hello to each other, but they don't really get that close. So presumably but there's quite some gap in the mechanism.
newatlas.com
Active