Well, unless the attack uses more innocuous/common words or phrases, or multiple triggers.

Imagine how many LLMs would be rendered useless if the poison word was something like "Please."
=Smidge=

> It. is interesting that you find that a comparison of the two methods is of no relevance

it's not relevant because... it's not relevant. Two very different approaches (reducing solar insolation/increasing albedo through atmospheric seeding vs. carbon capture via remineralization) with very different technical implementations and very different consequences both good and bad.

The only way they are comparable is if your argument is "actions have consequences" in which case sure - medicines also have side effects but we still administer them because the risks usually are worth the benefits.

Maybe a little geoengineering is also worth the risk, given the alternative of doing nothing. (Side note: Even if we were to completely stop CO2 emissions today, we are already past the tipping point by several evaluations. Additional effort beyond reducing emissions is now absolutely necessary.)

  >a lot of people believe every quick fix and then when it fails or proves impossible, move on to the next big fix without some investigation into possible catastrophic side effects

This feels like a lot of projection on your part. You came in here with specific claims, and when confronted you don't even acknowledge them and are trying to move on pretending it never happened.

I haven't seen anyone say this is *the* solution, or "the next big thing" as if all previous ideas are invalid, or that there's been no investigation into possible side effects - the article is literally about the investigation.

So to recap:

Your objection is that it might it might make the soil more alkali. My response is the soil is already too acidic, and that they have been adjusting the soil pH using limestone for decades, and that making the soil more alkali is actually a benefit to this strategy. Do you have anything to say regarding your original objection?

Your objection is that silica dust may cause harm to local populations and wildlife. My response is that they acknowledge this risk and are targeting (relatively) low silica basalts which provide the best chemistry for the lowest risk. Do you have anything to say regarding your original objection?

Your objection is acidic rain may cause the carbonates to re-release captured carbon. My response is that the chemical reactions at play explicitly rely on the acidity of the rain to function, so decomposition of the carbonate forms is really only possible if the applied minerals are fully depleted. So the worst case here is the acid rain is neutralized and we end up net zero on carbon? Also, which do you think is worse in terms of acid rain interaction; the basalt minerals, or the limestone they are already using?

Your specific example is sodium carbonate, which you talked about at length. Please explain where the sodium is coming from.

Spare us all the handwaving and man up to the claims you've made.

> Consider if you will, the really big side effect. That attempting to utilize these fixes will permit the petrochemical industry to not only continue as normal, but to increase its emissions

Or not. Nobody not already trying to defend fossil fuels will be comfortable with letting them off the hook. Everyone understands that emission reduction is absolutely necessary, but so is carbon removal at this point.
=Smidge=

If they weren't going to make money on it they wouldn't have bothered, they're not a charity. You can guarantee the construction is the shittiest they can get away with made in the lowest quality chinese factory and it will probably fail after a year or too anyway if used a lot.

> Sulfur or hydrogen/chlorine aerosolization

That seems completely unrelated to the article. nobody is proposing aerosol anything here.

> Using huge tracts of land to purposely alkalinize the soil is going to create issues with the land and riverine environment and local ecology.

The huge tracts of land are already effectively ruined by agriculture; They are not proposing to do this over virgin plains or forests. The soil is already acidic, and historically they have been using limestone to increase the pH to make it suitable for crops, so some amount of alkalinity is actually desirable here. It's mentioned in the publication that they (paraphrasing) understand the impacts of adding some alkalinity to the soil, the target result is a more neutral pH, and they are aware of the consequences of over-applying it.

As far as pH management goes, it's unlikely to be any worse than the limestone they have already been working into the fields for decades.

> and silicosis being an ongoing threat for wildlife and nearby humans

This is also addressed in the report. They are specifically selecting basalt for the higher mineral:silica ratio and low toxic metal content which minimizes the risks.

> And in areas where acid rain is present, quick reactions can release the Carbon dioxide right back into the atmosphere

It's unclear where the carbon is coming from that's not already in the form of carbonic acid (CO2 dissolved in rainwater). The entire process works because the acidic rain reacts with the minerals to produce stable carbon compounds, so it's not immediately clear how or why the sane acidic rain that the reaction relies on would undo that reaction. There is no appreciable amount sodium in the minerals being spread either, so I have no idea why you're mentioning sodium carbonate or where it's coming from.

> I reviewed the chemical process of that in another post.

Well, you addressed chemistry but I didn't see anything relevant to this situation. Maybe you should re-read the articles relevant to the topic and consider what parts of your arguments are and aren't applicable. (Hint: Sodium bicarbonate is not relevant.)
=Smidge=

It must've required magic to load those games if you didn't also have tape or disk drive to plug into it. Congrats on completely missing his point.

> it creates more problems.

Such as?

=Smidge=

Yup. They're probably aiming at the xmas market, sell a few thousand, offer support for 6 months then disappear, cash in bank. Cube goes into cupboard, comes out 5-10 years later and goes into recycle.

"Now begins the trend of censorship on the Internet by nation-state boundary."

Begins?? Have you just stepped out of a time machine from the year 2000? Its been going on for years if not decades my friend in places like china, russia and north korea and they have far less noble reasons than trying to protect copyright.

Government isn't a zero sum game wrt enviromental concerns. Legislation on other things can and must happen as well, and any government thats just a one trick pony will soon find itself out on its ear.

Idiot anti nuclear anything pressure groups like CND and ignorant green hippies like Greenpeace and FoTE scared politicians away from nuclear for about 30 years from the 80s onwards. Now our old stations are closing and only 1 new one is being built.

Packaging is more expensive because it has to make a place for the cable. No cable, cheaper packaging, smaller boxes, less weight. All this adds up.

As I write this here in the UK sitting under a cloudy high pressure system with not much (inland) wind , 47% of our electricity is being generated by gas, 21% wind and 13% solar. Good, but not great , and there are always planning battles over siting of new wind and solar farms. Wind can be put in the sea (making it more vulnerable to russian sabotage but thats another discussion) but solar can't so we're probably not far off the install limit of the latter unless the government starts compulsory purchasing land for it.

Everyone wants their kid to be special or have special treatment? Shy, a bit awkward? Must be something wrong with them, must get special attention at school!

No! They're just normal kids. There is no single normal human behaviour, there's a whole spectrum of it from the psychotically gregarious to the socially awkward types amongst who I include myself and probably a lot of people who have it ended up in IT have it because interacting with a machine can be simpler. That doesn't make us special or abnormal, quite the contrary.

... then no one has it because that means its simply a section of the range of normal human behaviour and not a special condition or disorder at all.

Don't forget cyclone and typhoon - both hurricanes, just different oceans.