> 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 creates more problems.

Such as?

=Smidge=

Arduino boards are a lot more powerful than the microcontrollers used in many commercial products. Hell, a lot of those super-ubiquitous 8-pin micros with no markings are like 2KB program ROM and 128 BYTES of RAM.

If you're complaining about only 32KB or RAM, you're either a shitty developer who's chosen the wrong tool for the job, or a shitty developer who can't optimize their code.
=Smidge=

It's the perfect amount of money.

It's not enough to do anything visibly useful, and not so much that it would be hard to account for it all... so when it all vanishes into private pockets with nothing to show for it, most people won't bother investigating too hard.
=Smidge=

From the linked paper:

While the concept of energy droughts have received much attention, we do not find evidence of extended time periods of low VRE production in the NEM. For example, over a two-week period in the worst historical time sequence, the VRE fleet would still have delivered 70 % of the expected output once seasonal trends (e.g., winter solar production) are taken into account. A 30 % reduction in expected energy is therefore the worst two-week historical VRE drought on record.

A historically worst-case scenario of a 30% energy deficit over 2 weeks is not quite the same as needing 3 full days of storage. But it gets better, because the next paragraph explains:

These figures also assume no curtailed energy. In practice, it will almost always be efficient to overbuild renewables at a local level [...]. The market operator [...] projects 20 % VRE curtailment by 2050, while (Simshauser et al., 2021) have suggested that a 20% to 240% overbuild of capacity on a transmission line would be efficient. The subsequent curtailment will reduce variability of output and deliver more constant energy both daily and seasonally, reducing the risks of droughts

In other words, the 30% deficit assumes the exact amount of renewable energy generation capacity is provided and none of it is left unused... but to make optimal use of the grid, it is expected that there will be more renewable energy capacity built than strictly necessary - by 20% to 240% - meaning there is basically guaranteed to be unused, excess capacity available that could be deployed to cover these weather related "droughts."

Thanks for providing the link; saved me a lot of time proving your concerns unfounded.
=Smidge=

> There's no indication of the circumstances of their birth

Table C1, page 45.

This is also the Cornell University Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, where the median family income for students is over $150K, so certainly none of them are poor.
=Smidge=

They set up an experiment with "workers" who get compensated based on either luck or performance, so some workers get more than others but not necessarily because they did a better job. The students actually being studied are then asked to redistribute the earnings if they want, in either direction (e.g. give workers they feel worked harder more, or give workers they feel were exceptionally lucky less)

One of the variables the the experiment is how much it costs to redistribute the earnings. For example, you can take $1 form worker A and give it to worker B, but if the efficiency cost is 50% then worker B only gets $0.50 and the other $0.50 is lost. This lost value is the efficiency cost.

Basically they're saying that the likelihood and amount of redistribution is strongly dependent on how much it costs to implement it. The more expensive it is to transfer wealth, the more disparity there is between the haves and have-nots.

Overall the paper seems to show that people born with a silver spoon up their ass not only see inequality as less of a problem, but are severely less inclined to do anything about it at all if the solution isn't literal magic. Quelle surprise.
=Smidge=

Public schools don't fail int he same way that private ones do. They can't, because they aren't businesses.

It's really sad to have to explain, over and over, that operating public services as for-profit businesses - or worse, replacing public services with for-profit businesses - is literally the whole reason shit is falling apart. The peak of American civilization also had the highest tax rates for the wealthy and the most extensive and functional public services. That was not a coincidence.
=Smidge=

> I can tell that you have no idea what you're talking about because the vast majority of public K-12 school funding is through local taxes, not federal funding.

About 13% of public schools are funded federally. You say "the vast majority" as if to handwave 13% of their funding as unsubstantial. Most importantly, this funding goes to schools that do not have the local tax revenue to fully support them.

> The federal government has almost no control over it so they can't cut funding

The federal Dept. of Education plays a key role in ensuring equitable access to education. You know how they exert control over local schools? By creating and enforcing (or NOT enforcing) policies, because their job is ultimately to implement and enforce laws created by Congress that apply to public education.

> There are also many states that have charter schools that perform better for less money than the public schools, so it's not a money problem.

Charter schools have an abysmal reputation; approximately 1 in 4 charter schools end up out of business within 5 years, leaving their students in the lurch and those who paid for it with empty wallets.

It's just a scam to funnel public money into private hands and push indoctrination. Look at all the enshittification that's happened and is currently happening in the name of chasing profits - we cannot afford that in education, financially or culturally.
=Smidge=

> HOW ABOUT we use a lifting body like an airship instead? ...says the person completely ignorant of the history of airships. There's a reason they aren't used for anything.

It's not immediately clear that a larger airplane would need a larger airport. The size of the runway needed really depends on the minimum speed needed to take off and stay aloft, and how quickly it can reach that speed from a standstill. A huge plane with large, efficient wings and powerful engines that can take off in 5000 feet of runway with a 100+ ton load can still use just about any existing airport.

Meanwhile you can't even get an airship out of its hangar if it's a bit windy, and it's not like a construction site for wind turbines would have any strong wind, right?
=Smidge=

Not only has it been done before, we now have drone technology that make it even easier to synchronize multiple aircraft.

A dozen extra large drones, some slings, and a chase helicopter with the operator. Seems very doable.
=Smidge=

Who said to doesn't count as renewable?

=Smidge=

> Did you actually read the NHTSA paper?

Not all 692 pages of course, but I read enough of it to know that if this is your comeback, you didn't even LOOK at it.

You throw shade at a paper you clearly disagree with for no reason you're able to articulate, comparing the authors to kindergartners and clowns, and you can't even be assed to read more than a headline for yourself. Fuckin' weak. Actual kindergartners have better reading skills.
=Smidge=

> Assume? is this not a research paper, how about ... you know ... do research?

That's a hilarious thing to say immediately before doing 30 seconds of Google searching. Did you happen to notice that number in parenthesis in that portion you quoted? Do you suppose it was a hyperlink for a reason? That's called a 'citation' - it's when you are referencing some other publication or data source, and you want to be clear about where you got your information.

"30 NHTSA. Final Rulemaking for Model Years 2024â"2026 LightDuty Vehicle Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards 2022; https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhtsa.gov%2Fsites%2Fnh.... (accessed August 20, 2024).There is no corresponding record for this reference."

We can then load up that PDF, and find that section 4.3 "Estimating Total Vehicle Miles Traveled" lays out in detail the methodology for determining vehicle mileage and its effects on vehicle efficiency. And if you're somehow not satisfied with that, the cited paper also has its own citations to look into.

THAT is how you do research, oshkrozz, not just asking Google. I bet you stopped reading at the AI summary too lul.
=Smidge=

Can you provide an example of this happening? Just tried it now and they definitely don't let you upload webp, and this is the first time I've ever heard anyone even mention file type conversion of ANY kind other than mp4 to gifv (which the mp4 version still exists...)

=Smidge=