311–320 of 827 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
Honestly I find Bill Gates a pretty OK dude, all things considered. If you live life without making any mistakes/enemies that means you really didn't live at all.
There's also the whole bit with Paul Allen where they tried to take all of his shares when he had cancer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We (now) know but most people don't, when somebody says it'll "produce X amount of power than you put in" any normal human being would think "it's done" but then they'll wonder for next X decades why there are no power plants yet? Because nobody told them that you need more power than it produces at the end and positive net was just for final reaction and without heat to electricity conversion.
You should watch the hour long press release and see just how clearly they explain what has been done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From other comment > I mean, start with why his wife is divorcing him (Jeffery Epstein) and why he's no longer on the board at Microsoft(inappropriate relationships with staffers), then go into how he's screwed up public schooling in the US, then Microsoft under him. That's the easy stuff that you can see publicly.
Whats with public schooling? I havent found anything that looks relevant
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm happy to hear someone make this point. Rather than sneering "vaporware" when decades fail to crack a problem, I would prefer us to keep in mind that if we never try multi-generational projects, we will never taste the fruit of multi-generational projects, and those are some sweet fruit indeed.
It runs into the spaceship problem where later iterations of a spaceship reach the destination first because new technology allows them to fly faster. At some point (maybe) materials and other technology will develop enough so that fusion becomes feasible on a decades or so timeline. Or solar & battery technology will develop to the point where fusion isn't really needed.
You can't skip inventing ironworks because eventually titanium will be invented.
They're still a very long way from getting a net gain in energy: https://youtu.be/LJ4W1g-6JiY
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fusion is always 30 years away" is a heuristic that almost always works. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/heuristics-that-almost...
We haven't even been splitting atoms for a full century yet. Give science some goddamn time to work.
> This is more than double what was achieved in similar tests back in 1997. The experiment produced > 11 megawatts of power and at Jet > two 500 megawatt flywheels are used to run the experiments log_2(2*500/11)*(2022-1997) + 2022 = 2185 At this rate we will have fusion by 2185 I guess?
They always say this...its like when NASA says "Possible alien life found on Mars" and it turns out to be just a new kind of dust particle.
"These experiments we've just completed had to work,"
Situations like this create a pressure cooker of bias. Maybe they got the result they wanted by force of will not because of the underlying science or engineering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should watch the hour long press release and see just how clearly they explain what has been done.
What's nice is that even for Q_plasma this only gets 0.33. So it's a net loss no matter how you measure it.