This solves only part of the problem: it captures CO2 and can release it later. But you still need to figure out what to do with this CO2, how to turn it into something useful.
Their process for generating potassium formate is greener than standard methods. It does require electricity as an input but that can come from renewable, green sources.
Potassium formate is used in de-icing products, fertilizer, heat transfer fluids, drilling fluid, etc... so a useful, monetizeable output comes out of the process.
Disclosure - Know the founders personally. Wanted to shoutout their work. No financial ties to the company.Chemistry is not at all my expertise & I don't have details on their process beyond what's on the website.
you can inject it into peridotites and let it mineralize. there is enough exposed peridotite outcrops in the world that we could inject all the co2 produced and store it there indefinitely. this process also produces elemental hydrogen.
This is more about the mechanics of how the rock breaks to allow fluids to move around.
And here is another paper currently in review that we coauthored about how we know there’s gas moving in the system and therefore hydrogen is being produced:
Someone proposed to make giant beaches of malachite and let the sea break the rocks. Malachite has two -OH that can be replaced by a CO3= and so capture the CO2.
I can't find a good link now, but at least it's the only method I know where it's not obvious that requires a huge amount of energy that makes the whole process net negative.
Stable storage would be limestone. To bring it down to pre-industrial levels it would mean that each person on earth would get a cube of 5 meters a side.
IDK, build houses out of limestone like we have been doing for ages.
I'm fine with keeping it inside something brick-shaped and chucking it down an abandoned mine from where it can be retrieved at a later time. It would definitely be a storage improvement over "the atmosphere and our lungs".
The answer is obvious: create a cryptocurrency-based economy where countries and citizens are incentivized to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and ship it into space in exchange for crypto.
/s
One of the subplots from the excellent Delta-V series by Daniel Suarez.
Profit is not an appropriate measure of how well a business is operated. I'm sure they have been prioritizing growth because the whole point of the platform is to introduce competition to Steam. Keeping the margins low (or even negative) is smart when the primary goal is not to make profit but to insure the parent company against monopolistic behavior.
The keyfob was brought up by someone so they can make a clickbaity title: "A thing in your pocket has more computing power than Apollo guidance computer. And it's not your smartphone"
But you haven't made any money either. That's what "profit" means.
Also, "the asset" here means stocks of a company that is losing billions dollars per year. OpenAI has no clear path to become profitable, especially given the fact that Google has just leaprfroged them with their Gemini 3 model.
Well, by offering food for punch in the face you changed it from charity to free market transaction. Basically you gave them a chance to earn their food instead of just giving it to them. If they deem the price too high and refuse your offer then again, nothing bad happened.
Not all free market transactions are reasonable. Selling yourself into slavery is a "free market transaction" I hope you would not consider legitimate.
I'm aware. See for instance, VC Arielle Zuckerberg's comment that when deciding which founders to fund she looks for "a little of the rizz and a little of the tis" with "rizz" referring to charisma and "tis" to autism.
One could argue that mythologizing a particular characteristic is itself a form of stigma.
"Totalitarian nightmare" is the natural state of the mankind. At the end of the day we are just animals, seeking to establish dominance over other animals. Couple centuries of democracy were an anomaly, raising from the fact that industrial revolution needed educated people as factory workers, but did not create effective tools of control over those (now educated and therefore more conscious and politically active) masses until very recently.
It's possible in the same way its possible that you will spontaneously phase through the floor due to a particular outcome of atomic resonance. Possible, but so unlikely it almost certainly has not, nor ever will happen.
Might something a small as a grain of sand have phased through a solid barrier as thin as a piece of paper somewhere on earth, at some point over billions of years? Sure. Paper is still pretty thick, and a grain of sand is enormous on the atomic scale, but it's at least in the realm of practical probability. When you start talking about cum(P) events in the realm of 1/1e30 you simply can't produce a scenario with that many dice rolls. If our population was 8 quadrillion and spanned a 40,000 year empire we would likely still never see an individual 11σ from the mean.
The probability is exactly zero by definition. The maximum score on a test is a raw score of 100%. Tests are normalized to have the reported scores fit a normal distribution. An out-of-distribution score indicates an error in normalizing the test.
In other words, the highest IQ of every living person has a defined upper bound that is dependent on the number of living people and it is definitionally impossible to exceed this value. Reports of higher values are mistakes or informal exaggerations, similar to a school saying a student is one that you would only encounter in a million years. By definition it is not possible to have evidence to support such a statement.
The maximum IQ score anyone can get depends on the total number of people who have taken IQ tests so far. Even if every single person alive today took an IQ test (which is absurd in itself), the maximum IQ achievable would be between 190-197. In practice, I'd guess the maximum is somewhere between 170 and 185 (millions to tens of millions of IQ test results which were recorded).
Even then, you need special tests to distinguish between anyone with IQ higher than about 160 - all those people get the same (perfect) score on regular IQ tests.
So: claiming to have an IQ of 276? Bullshit. The guy whose parents claimed he scored 210 on an IQ test? Also bullshit. To get 210, there would have to have been ~500 billion IQ test results recorded.
Between 8 and 9 billion. But "impossible" means a chance of zero, and 8 billion / 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 > 0, so it's not impossible. The chances that he's lying or delusional are vastly higher of course, but that's no reason to use "impossible" incorrectly.
Impossible is almost always a colloquialism, almost everything is possible is you accept a low enough probability of success. We are talking about something less likely than almost anything else ever called impossible.
No, I think you are misunderstanding. IQ does not describe the likelihood of someone being that smart. It just means you order a number of people by their „intelligence“, the one in the middle is defined as 100 and then it depends on how many other people are in that line which IQ number the person at the end of the line gets. So it’s impossible because the definition of IQ is such that a certain number doesn’t come up without a certain number of measurements.
It‘s as if you would say 150% of all people are female. That is impossible, not just unlikely.
Off topic but: Jury trials are one of the weirdest things about America: If I’m ever on trial for some crime I want my case decided by professional judges not a team of random idiots.
On the other hand, there’s a good argument to be made that if you think the judiciary can be captured for political ends, a trial and verdict by your peers at least gives you the opportunity to get a fair(er) shot. And in many (most?) US jurisdictions you can waive your right to a jury trial and ask for a bench trial instead.
reply