Air defense lines do not account for dudes behind those lines releasing suicide drones.
Don't be stupid.

AI would be beneficial with more accuracy. Today's AI can't solve basic coding problems or even accurately summarize text. I just had Gemini scare the shit out of me when I googled a side effect for an extremely common and used medication. It got it exactly wrong. It treats the symptom...the AI said it causes it. I simply googled the medication name and side effects...in the past, I would have been directed to a manufacturer's webpage...now AI is hallucinating that it does the opposite of what it does....which is fine if I go to ChatGPT...but I just tried googling and the first result was WRONG...and really fucking scary.

I used AI 5x today before noon and it only got 2 of the requests correct, without hallucinations. The rest were wildly wrong and I had to spend more time debugging their code than it would have taken me to write the code.

AI is interesting and fun to play with, but you can't trust it. It simply is not accurate. The profile is it generates text/code that LOOKs correct, but frequently isn't...often wrong, always certain.

You know who benefits from persuasive, but no necessarily accurate text?...scammers!...phishers!...people doing elaborate cons. Everyone else needs a lot more accuracy than today's products provide

Citation needed. Did you just quote an LLM to me, because I cannot find that text anywhere.

Also, "some companies" does not mean "The US".
The existence of people who have committed murder in the US does not mean that murder is legal in the US, or unprosecuted.

No, it does not.

It merely needs to be embedded in the institution.
They can be entirely unintentional, or fallout from previously disestablished policies (i.e., pretending that redlining doesn't have consequences today is mind-numbingly stupid)

Of course not. They fire bombed much more than Dresden, then moved in to occupy the rubble^H^H^H^H^H^Harea, and then said they Won the War.

Not really. They wanted them to be accountable for 25 years instead of 15.
Both numbers are dumb, really.
25 year sequestration is not any more helpful than 15 year.

Gah-
*but let us not pretend that every wood house is not a Ship of Theseus.

Untrue. Burning is not the only way that carbon biomass becomes gaseous again.

It might not right now, but it will. But also probably is right now too.

Don't get me wrong- using wood to build a house is far fucking better than alternatives, but let us not pretend that every wood house is a Ship of Theseus, in a constant state of decay and rebuilding that eventually becomes unmaintained (rot not replaced with new wood) or burnt.

It isn't. That's the problem.

The laws of physics demand it must be.

Maturity is a completely arbitrary and unscientific selection. What made you pick it?

I blame them both. Both the Government for leaving it up to a court to decide that "2050 is what people probably think it means", which is arbitrary and kind of absurd- and the corporation, for not exercising some level of self restraint coloring within the lack of fucking lines.

Incorrect.
If it does not survive long enough to accumulate enough biomass to offset the desired amount of carbon- that is true.

Maturity is just the point where the biomass stabilizes, which has nothing to do with any particular amount having been "neutralized", and mature forests are slashed and burned just as easy as young ones.

Every neutralization scheme have some period for which they can guarantee the sequestration, with the exception of 1- firing it upwards at escape velocity.
That time period is what must be negotiated between people using the term "carbon neutral"- including you, the purchaser, and them, the company.
Lacking statute that defines it, it seems the court has made the right call to treat it like any other kind of advertising. Is 15 years what the common person wold expect? No? Then misleading.
Though the court's selection of 2050 is kind of dubious.

Oh ya? Are they responsible for ensuring its immortality as well? The hermetic sealing of the land so that decomposition cannot happen?
Are they promising a vibrant forest in perpetuity?
Even if they were to offset it by capturing carbon from the atmosphere and making limestone, it too, would one day return its carbon to the atmosphere.

No- "forever" is a stupid fucking assurance, and if you think it isn't, it's because you're stupid.
However, everything in between is negotiable, and I do agree with the court that 15 years seems... below what the average person would expect.

No. It does not, and it cannot.
The claim of neutrality is intimately tied to the length at which the neutrality applies.
Even carbonaceous rocks aren't carbon neutral at geological timescales.

I do agree with the court that "15 years" seems a bit short, however.

Nice try.
Unless you're perhaps admitting you weren't fully aware of the meaning and intimations of what you wrote, which I guess actually does seem pretty plausible- you're not fooling anyone by this 5th grade attempt at gaslighting your way out of something stupid you said.

They presented no such dichotomy.
Their claim consists of 2 clauses that are not dependent.
Clause 1: Fossil fuels have increased the hours of life lived by humans in aggregate by a near immeasurable amount.
Clause 2: Removing them would undo that.
You combined them into 1 to better suit your attempted chastisement.

Why?
The cost of anything is not infinite simply because you don't know how to do it. That's a patently fucking absurd claim. Straight up stupid.
The only way the claim makes a bit of fucking sense is if you assume there is actually any kind of competition between the house of life lived by humans in aggregate, and the cost. There isn't.

Reading comprehension, and composition, are precisely your problem. You're wielding concepts that you're too stupid to fully understand, I'd say.

I would love to but I'm will waiting on that 110% pay. Everyone should take a pay positive attitude because we're worth it, right? Hello? Are you still there?

And? Coal has been dying off because it's not competitively priced.

I thought we were talking about ICE. Anyway, "almost as low" means that emissions are still higher, for ICEV, HEV, and PHEV even when powered by coal.

You literally just told me that the most inefficient BEV with the most inefficient electrical source still emits fewer GHGs than any other types of powertrain. Literally all BEVs are less emitting than all other powertrain. That is a binary proposition.