The current prices for battery storage are US$75/kWh. Hence 2 TWh cost about US$150 billions. (I just checked, I can order a 4 kWh LiFePo4 pack for less than 300 EUR at Amazon - rated at 6000 charging cycles.) The Australian Health budget is about 112 AUD billion for 2024/25, or about US$60 billion. This means that the Australian public health spending buys us 2 TWh battery storage every three years, given current end user prices at Amazon in the EU.

I also seriously doubt your 15 years figure. Current technology degrades about 20% after 3000 charging cycles. Given that the 2 TWh number is a 3 day storage, you would need to fully recharge them about 120 times a year at a maximum, which means that after 25 years, you still have 80% of the capacity left. This means you have to add 20% of the capacity after 25 years or do a complete refresh every 125 years - and that means that all technology development stops right now.

I bet, LIGO can also detect the difference between workdays and weekends. That's how bad the idea of resting is!

For everyone to chisel it in marble: Just because you can detect it does not mean it is bad.

You do realize that I was mocking the previous poster?

By the way, do you know where the name "Neanderthal" comes from? The valley (Thal, today's spelling Tal), was named after a guy named Joachim Neander, who was working at the Latin grammar school in nearby Düsseldorf in the 17th century. He also was a prolific writer of famous church hymns, including Praise to the Lord, the Almighty. His name in turn was changed by his grandfather, Johann Joachim Neumann, who also was a scholar. In the fashion of the time, he translated his name Neumann (German for New Man) into Greek: Neoandros, or for better pronunciation for his fellow countrymen, Neander. Neanderthal hence means "Valley of the New Man", and this is exactly where the fossils of a hithertho unknown, new species of Man were discovered in 1856.

Nice strawman here. If Science is religion to you, you are doing it wrong. If you want eternal truths, Science is not the way to go. Yes, 50% of all scientific papers are non-reproducable. And this is a problem exactly why? Someone makes an observation, tries to enumerate the ways he got to that observation, and then publishes it. Someone else tries to reproduce the observation, and sometimes, it works, sometime it does not. How do you know you got a real observation and not a fluke, if you don't reproduce it? And what would the point of reproducing it if we knew the result beforehand?

What you want to be a weakness is actually the strength of Science. We learn from mistakes, and for that to work, we have to produce mistakes. We err up.

I guess the main problem you have with Science is that it is not a good negotiation partner. Carbon dioxide happens to absorb electromagnetic waves at 4.26 micrometers and at 15 micrometers, and there is nothing you can do about it. It makes no sense to blame Carbon dioxide to be a supporter of the Left. It makes no sense to offer billions of dollars to prove otherwise. All you can do is look at the consequences and find out what this means for you.

It is still a better substitute compared to live alone as an hermit for most people. And people indulging themselves in consumerism and travel live longer and healthier than most hermits. And then there is the question, what a "real community" actually means, and you will notice that as soon as your community grows beyond a certain size, the differences about the nature of "real community" become insurmountable, and the once real community breaks up and becomes no longer real. And you will notice that any community which seems to work seamlessly for a generation, and maybe a second generation fizzles out in the third, something we know since at least we have written records. It has nothing to do with Science, or the Left, or whatever strawman you want to blame it on. It seems a part of human nature.

But Uranium is limited. At the current rate, the known mineable resources are spent within the next 35 years. What do we after that? Filtering Uranium from seawater?

Not really. If you are of Caucasian origin, you are in part a Neanderthalensis. And no one lives in Neanderthal right now, because since 1922, it's a Strict Nature Reserve. But there is still a train station of the same name at the suburban S28 line from Duesseldorf.

Extrapolating from current trends, in 40,000 I will be more than 38,000 years old.

But to be more realistic: Extrapolating from current trends, the current world population will reach 10 billions by the end of the century and not increase anymore. Everything else is nonsense or propaganda spread by people trying to instill fear.

No, they won't. Because no company easily forfeits 30-50% of their revenue.

There is a reason why continental Europe (and with it the countries they colonized) drive on the right: the French Revolution and Napoleon.

Traditionally, people kept to the left side of the road, which was already the rule in Ancient Rome. In France, with coaches, carriages and riders keeping to the left, pedestrians started to walk on the right, so they could see oncoming traffic and step aside not to block the coaches and riders, which were mainly aristocracy. In the French Revolution, everyone was a citizen, and now, everyone kept right, and especially the military marched on the right side of the road. In the Napoleonic Wars, this was carried over to most other European countries with the exception of the British Islands and Northern Europe, and now, this is the rule everywhere except in the British Commonwealth and Ireland.

To me, this is a manager not fit for his job. The young worker had handed in his vacation in advance, and the manager knew that he was on person short on staff. Still, he was not able to adjust workload accordingly. This is solely a fail on the manager's side, not an attitude problem of the young worker.

Climate change has political ramifications. But that's not the problem at hand here.

Climate change poses big political questions: 1) Do we want this? 2) If not, do we want to do something about it? 3) Either way, who will pay for it?

"Politization" means that people try to answer 3) with "someone else than me" by either claiming question 1) does not exist at all, or answer 2) depending on their political affiliation, completely ignoring 3).

When shoud that have been? I am in the field since about 30 years, and I can't remember those alleged days.

This might work if the people from your team are in the same office building. But if your team is spread via several locations, the benefit of being in the office is starkly reduced.

The "higher up" would be the Minister of Defense, and if that fails, the Chancellor of the Republic Austria. But as the head of Direktorat 6 and the Cyber corps is not a political appointee, but a career soldier, it's quite complicated for the Minister of Defense to buy Office Licenses while the head of Direktorat 6 refuses to install it on any army computers.

No, it's not that easy. Because you have two different offices to agree, the political office in the Ministry of Defense, and the military office Direktion (directorate) 6.