Honestly I'm surprised. With the amount of hot air he and his administration generate there should be turbines at the White House ... :-)

I don't mean to criticize your attempt at comedy, but do you realize for a joke to be funny the double entendre has to be dually valid? I mean I get that pirates (supposedly) say "arr" (though nobody has ever actually validated that pirates say that outside of Hollywood). My point is that pirates do not utilize anything called R for navigation or anything like that. Pirates saying "arr" isn't really a coding or function related activity. There needs to be a tool or significant activity called "R" associated with pirates or piracy. Hell I'd settle for if software pirates used a tool called R for cracking or distribution .. but they don't. I understand that people may laugh and think your joke is funny, but any laughter it induces is due to people's lack of humor judgement skills and thus is not validly proportionate to the joke's intrinsic humor. Basically, while your joke might make people laugh, that's all it's good at .. it isn't funny. Don't get upset with me, I am offering advice is all. Thanks.

Use AI, we don't need programming languages anymore.

But pirates love it ... :-)

Applets sucked so badly, that I will never believe Java can be good for any UI.

This is the kind of attitude that has resulted in workers now taking home 60% of their share of productivity today vs. what they got in the '70s. If anyone figures out a counterbalance to ownership-class power other than collective worker action, let me know.

It sort of acknowledged and glossed over that point: "Refineries would have to invest in new, extremely expensive equipment to break down or convert this unwanted gasoline fraction into heavier products, or simply dispose of it, which is highly inefficient and costly."

I didn't want to deep dive into the whole economics thing though as then we'll be adding layers of speculation.

That was an interesting point. I thought about it for a second and asked AI "If gasoline was not refined from crude oil, how many barrels of oil would be needed, think about it carefully. Consider that some of the barrel would be wasted if the gasoline part was unnecessary."

This is a great question that requires a careful examination of the entire crude oil refining process, not just the final products. The answer is it would still take approximately the same number of barrels of crude oil to supply the demand for non-gasoline products, and possibly even more.

Here is the detailed breakdown of why:

1. Crude Oil is a Single Package

Crude oil is a complex mixture of thousands of different hydrocarbon molecules. It is defined by its chemical composition, and you cannot simply remove the "gasoline part" before the barrel is refined.

The gasoline component (naphtha/light distillate) is physically in the crude oil.

The first and most fundamental refining step, atmospheric distillation, separates the crude oil into different fractions based on their boiling points.

Image of Crude Oil Distillation Column
Shutterstock
Gasoline is one of these inherent fractions, alongside diesel, jet fuel, heating oil, and the heavier components used for lubricants and asphalt.

The entire 42-gallon barrel must be processed to get to any of the desired products (plastics feedstock, diesel, jet fuel, etc.).

2. The "Waste" Problem (Market Dynamics)

If the gasoline fraction (about 40-47% of the barrel) suddenly had no use, a severe waste problem would arise, but the demand for the other products would remain constant.

The Problem: Refineries would still have to buy the same amount of crude oil to meet the demand for diesel, jet fuel, and petrochemical feedstocks (for plastics).

The Outcome: Nearly half of every barrel processed would become a low-value, unusable byproduct (a pool of light hydrocarbons that would have been gasoline). Refineries would have to invest in new, extremely expensive equipment to break down or convert this unwanted gasoline fraction into heavier products, or simply dispose of it, which is highly inefficient and costly.

3. Impact on Non-Gasoline Products

Since the refinery still needs to cover the cost of the entire barrel of crude oil plus the new cost of managing the waste, the price of the non-gasoline products (like plastics, diesel, and jet fuel) would dramatically increase to cover the loss of revenue from gasoline.

To maintain the current supply of plastics feedstock (naphtha/LPG) and diesel, the total number of crude barrels processed would remain virtually unchanged. The only difference is that ~40% of the output would be useless waste instead of high-value gasoline.

The True Measure: Demand for Desired Products

The total number of barrels needed is dictated by the global demand for the specific fractions.

If we assume the demand for all other products (Diesel, Jet Fuel, Plastics Feedstock, etc.) remained constant, the refining industry would still consume:

Required Crude Oil Barrels = Yield Percentage of Desired Products in Crude / Volume of Desired Products

Since the volume of desired products is the same, and the yield per barrel is the same, the same number of crude oil barrels must be brought into the refinery to obtain them.

My friend has a 2013 Model S with 290,000 miles on it (yeah he drives a 25k miles per year). The battery still gives him nearly 180 miles, it was originally 210. Biggest maintenance expense is tire changes, and I think he had to replace his windshield once. That's not anecdotal or an anomaly, you can check online it's typical. He will get a new car next year only because the it is starting to have cosmetic issues and he wants to have full self driving.

... when all those batteries need to be replaced ...

What about all that "beautiful, clean coal" I keep hearing about from someone? Maybe they should try that. /s :-)

Our current President and his followers especially... Usually the smarter (more educated) someone is the more they realize how much they don't know. Sadly, the opposite is also often true. The dumber (less educated) often they know more than they do. See: Dunning–Kruger effect

Trump thinks he knows everything and is the best at everything, which makes me believe this story about one of his former Wharton professors, as reported here:

It has to do with established vested interests in the company. If you're the powerful VP in charge of film operations, are you going to let those kids working of digital come in and take a fat slice of your pie? Same reason why GM and Ford can't pivot to EV and autonomous driving. Something even Rivian is able to do better. Within many companies, people make decisions based on what's good for themselves, not the company. That's why companies find it very hard to pivot, especially if the CEO doesn't have a strong personality and isn't visionary or a founder.

Probably the same amount the guy who invented PCR got .. a $1000 bonus check and an "exceeds expectations" in that year's performance review.

Seiko Spring drive is amazing, but Europeans do have something to rival it in my opinion .. the Gyrotourbillon. In terms of accuracy and utility it's more of a gimmick than Spring Drive, but looks cool. I haven't seen anyone duplicate it either.