This conversation chain is hilarious. The guy in the video does a great job, but you don’t want to watch 90 minutes - then watch the first 30 minutes at the very least without skimming. Okay, but then I see you go do long replies - how long did all of that take you in total? an hour? 90 minutes? for what? But it appears that you prefer it presented as a Coles notes version so maybe you learn differently.

To put it in simpler terms for those that still haven’t gotten it, if you were min-maxing for the long game, which one would ultimately come out on top? You must consider the cost of not only capital, but also environmental impacts and how this will affect the general economy as as a whole (agriculture for example rely on stable weather patterns). I am sure the long view is to go for the one that is long term sustainable with minimal drawbacks.

The only common ground that we can agree on is that the best we can do right now is to have a hybridized system. But we need to start transitioning where possible - and fast. The solar tech mentioned in the video has vastly improved since its inception. This isn’t going to happen overnight, nor in 5 years or 10 years. This is an ongoing project for humanity as a whole. Producing usable and store-able energy without killing ourselves in the long term is one of the biggest hurdles we have to face as humans.

Clearly this sub haven’t seen this video from Technology Connections. It breaks it all down for you step by step why the statement is true.

Don’t know why this has so much downvotes, but clearly people do love to hate something they don’t understand.

The M series chips that Apple has is hands down amazing. Low power usage, fast, and doesn’t heat up like any other PC chip. This translates to low fan noise, no laptop/surface burn, long battery life. It’s also somewhat of a contender for light local AI use. To put the cherry on top, the build quality supersedes any other brands on the market by scale and price. One would be foolish to not get a Mac laptop if you don’t want to dabble with Linux.

The correct terminology is people want to be able to express themselves and explore the world without being judged. Finding a purpose in what they want to do in and with their life. After all, no one was chosen to be born.

This is a stupid made up wedge issue. The real question should be - what is sports and what exactly are athletes competing for?

Why is it the default in sports male and female categories? Is it because they are physically different? Is it because one has a uterus? is it because of hormones so males and females develop differently? We have managed, through scientific breakthroughs, hormone replacement therapy to be able to transform our own bodies into what we want and that in itself is an achievement - albeit it isn’t perfect yet - but that’s another topic.

If the goal is to compete and display human physical prowess and strategy in a regulated environment then male/female/other/etc. categories shouldn’t exist. It should only be rated as ‘where do I stand as a human being among my peers in X sport?’

Trying to fit a gender into a flawed categorical system of sports is bound to cause friction.