chaosmarine92

joined 8 months ago
[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 22 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Nonsensical or thoroughly debunked technobabble. The most annoying for me is faster than light communication via quantum entangled particles. Yes entangled particles will change each other's state faster than light but this effect CANNOT be used to send information of any kind. At all. Ever. This has been known since engagement was first discovered but Hollywood is always like "I'm just going to ignore that second part." I don't even have anything against ftl comms or any other physics breaking things, just use an explanation that isn't literally impossible and well known why it's impossible for God's sake.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 97 points 3 months ago (10 children)

Shooting two guns at the same time does in fact look cool. That's not a myth. Hitting two targets with two guns at the same time is really hard though.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 6 points 3 months ago

Nowhere did I say or imply that capturing CO2 is a net positive of energy. It is in fact a huge energy sink. If you aren't using renewables to power CO2 capture then you're just making the problem worse.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

We have to do both. If today our emissions went to zero we would still see more warming because of all that CO2 we've already released. First priority is to get to net zero so we can stop making the problem worse, then we have to remove all the CO2 we released. We have the technology now to do step one it's just a matter of scaling it up. While we work on step one we need to do the research on the best way to do step two so when we get to that point we have something ready to go. Pulling CO2 out of the air is going to be inefficient no matter what just from the physics of the problem but it still needs to be done and the energy to do so has to come from renewables.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (10 children)

Doing some back of the envelope calculations we have put about 1.6 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Latest estimates put the number of trees on earth at around 3 trillion. Looking at how much CO2 a tree takes up puts the average around 600lbs over the first twenty years. So combing all this if we want to plant enough trees to take up all the excess CO2 we would need about 5.3 trillion more trees, or almost double the total number of trees on the planet.

This is simply not achievable in a fast enough time span to make a difference. Nevermind that I was being super optimistic with all my calculations and the real number needed is likely much higher still.

It is simply a necessity to develop better methods to pull CO2 directly from the air and to do it on the same scale that we have been releasing CO2.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 1 points 3 months ago

In addition to what has been said already, in many places the cost to upgrade the electrical service to the building to handle the amount of power that could be generated can be as much or more than all the other costs combined. So now the building operators are looking at millions in cost with a potentially 30 year payback period. It just doesn't make sense at that point.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Are the predicted prices ever crazy far off from what they actually end up being like what happened in Texas last winter? Where am outage causes price to go from like 20c/khw to 2000c/khw over a one hour period?

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 10 points 4 months ago (4 children)

How do you keep up with the current price? Does your thermostat have a setting where if the price is above X then turn off? Do you just come home to a freezing house and say "oh the electric is too expensive, guess I'll grab some wood"?

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 2 points 4 months ago

Yes I'm sure. That rear light is always on while driving and gets much much brighter while braking.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 4 points 4 months ago

Notice that the sound doesn't start until he goes around the corner, then it stops, then starts again, then he hits. That's not brake skid, that's I'm going to fast around a corner skid.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 4 points 4 months ago (5 children)

https://x.com/bfreshwa/status/1803823968547217903

He titles it "skid marks are 50 feet." But then never shows any evidence of skid marks.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 1 points 4 months ago (15 children)

This was driver error, not a malfunction. Multiple reasons for this. First, the brake always overrides the accelerator. If you hit both, the brake turns off the accelerator. If somehow the car still tries to accelerate while the brake is pressed then the brake is strong enough to overcome the motors and stop the vehicle. Second, he talked to a service center manager, not some higher up at Tesla. They don't know everything and we don't even know if his recollection of the conversation is accurate. Third, there is security camera footage from him showing him take off down the driveway towards his neighbor. In the footage the brake lights never turn on and he perfectly follows the very curved road. No skid marks are visible. If his back wheels actually locked up like he claimed he wouldn't have been able to follow the road like that. Fourth, why did he hit the neighbor's stuff instead of going into the big empty field on either side of his house? He clearly had steering control but didn't try to avoid hitting things. Conclusion: he hit the wrong pedal and doubled down on it like many other people across every model of car has.

view more: next ›