Oh certainly. Power storage is a real problem, especially with up-down renewables. I just didn’t understand why you were saying oil can’t be produced but hydrogen can. Synthesizing oil for power storage is a terrible idea 😄

Neither is hydrogen.

We absolutely can ‘make oil’. Been doing it since world war II. Synthetic oil is extremely common.

Iirc, when experimented on, these ‘escape pods’ would enter a spin so violent it would turn the whole thing into a lethal centrifuge.

The following is conjecture based on my highschool level knowledge of chemistry:

Alright, so let’s say this bottle suddenly appeared on your kitchen counter:

t = 0: The liquid C₂O immediately begins to decompose. Since it’s highly unstable, the bonds between carbon and oxygen atoms start breaking apart, even more rapidly in the presence of air. The immediate breakdown will produce carbon monoxide (CO) and elemental carbon.

t = 0 to t = 0.01 milliseconds: The initial decomposition reaction of C₂O releases a significant amount of heat. The heat from this reaction will cause the wax paper bottle to begin melting almost instantly. Compromising the bottle would expose the highly reactive C₂O directly to the air (Lots of oxygen!). Since the wax paper is flammable, the intense heat would cause the bottle to ignite, adding burning wax to the mix.

t = 0.01 milliseconds to t = 0.1 milliseconds: The carbon monoxide (CO) gas and solid carbon particles being produced will come into direct contact with the air. In the presence of oxygen, the carbon monoxide (CO) would start to burn, forming carbon dioxide (CO₂) and releasing even more heat:

2CO + O₂ --> 2CO₂

The wax paper bottle will likely be completely engulfed in flames at this point, burning rapidly due to the intense heat generated by the decomposition of C₂O and the oxidation of CO.

t = 0.1 milliseconds to t = 1 millisecond: The wax paper, now fully aflame, is contributing to the fire, adding smoke and soot from the combustion of hydrocarbons in the wax. As the heat from the fire builds, any residual liquid C₂O would further vaporize and decompose, intensifying the reaction. The decomposition continues to produce CO and solid carbon, while the surrounding air feeds oxygen to the burning CO, turning it into CO₂. At this stage, the pressure inside the remaining wax paper bottle would become too high, likely causing the bottle to burst in a small explosion, spraying any remaining liquid C₂O into the air.

t = 1 millisecond to t = 1 second: As the explosion occurs, the now airborne liquid C₂O particles would decompose instantly, reacting with the available oxygen in the air and producing more CO and CO₂. The additional heat generated would cause a tiny fireball to erupt, consuming any remaining wax from the bottle and intensifying the flames. Carbon soot (from the solid carbon produced in the decomposition) would mix with the smoke from the burning wax, forming a thick, black cloud. The surrounding air would become superheated, and the fireball would quickly dissipate as the remaining C₂O fully decomposes and reacts with oxygen.

t = 1 second and beyond: The result is a scorched area where the wax paper bottle used to be, surrounded by the remnants of burnt wax, carbon dioxide (CO₂), and solid carbon (soot). The carbon monoxide initially produced would be mostly oxidized into carbon dioxide due to the presence of oxygen, though some trace CO might still linger. Soot and charred remains of the wax bottle would coat the immediate area, while the air would be filled with the smell of burnt wax and carbon.

Oh, look, a post on Lemmy about Windows. I’m excited to engage in a unique, nuanced discussion about the topic of the post!

So glad I’m not on Reddit where people just repeat the same predictable thing over and over then jerk each other off.

(I use Linux too. But I hate seeing copy+paste Linux shilling on every Windows post. It’s preaching to the choir and uninspired.)

Better to have ads pushed down our collective throats than let collectivists have us by the throat. An ‘unregulated’ market lets us choose whether or not to use them, instead of justifying their necessity to avoid censorship.

The most secure & economical option is to never go outside

As a network security expert, I’ve got that on LOCK

Thank God for cars. Imagine riding public transport and getting felt up/robbed/harassed. Glad we can all agree on this Lemmy 👍

Obviously this is the worst of both worlds, but it’s a weird flex to support cars.

Hunter2

Not at 5 years old! Absolutely not.

Literal Eli5: “it’s a slang term that some people use, but it isn’t something you should worry about right now. It’s meant for adults”

Since I’m becoming a father soon, I started learning responses like this

*thesaurisi

Yeah, I mistyped part of the sentence. Should have been “without some serious effort or illegal methods.” Serious effort is well beyond most ISP’s. They aren’t sniffing wireless AP’s then busting down doors to find out if its a 5g AP or an AP using their network. I actually know quite a bit about WiFi signals. I happen to be certified in Meraki (CMSS). If the uni said “no wireless signals” that would be a completely different story.

Robust but complex solution:

1. Set up an encrypted VPN at the router level. Any encryption will work, even weak dumb encryption is fine. Any attempts to decrypt it would be mad illegal.

2. Turn off your SSID.

It is now functionally impossible to detect anything about the traffic or the Wi-Fi router without some serious or illegal methods.

Your brain doesn’t have a single module that knows what an apple is. Instead, different parts work together to form the concept. The occipital lobe in particular, processes how an apple looks, but it doesn’t “know” what an apple is—it just handles visual characteristics. When these various modules combine, they produce your idea of an apple, which is then interpreted by another part of the brain.

When you decide to draw an apple, your brain sends signals to the cerebellum to move your hands. The cerebellum doesn’t know what an apple is either. It simply follows instructions to draw shapes based on input from other brain regions that handle motor skills and artistic representation. Even those parts don’t fully understand what an apple is—they just act on synaptic patterns related to it.

AI, by comparison, is missing many of these modules. It doesn’t know the taste or scent of an apple because it lacks sensory input for taste or scent. AI lacks a Cerebral Cortex, Reticular Activating System, Posterior Parietal Cortex, Anterior Cingulate Cortex, and the necessary supporting structures to experience consciousness, so it doesn’t “know” or “sense” anything in the way a human brain does. Instead, AI works through patterns and data, never experiencing the world as we do.

This is why AI often creates dream-like images. It can see and replicate patterns similar to the synaptic patterns created by the occipital lobes in the brain, but without the grounding of consciousness or the other sensory inputs and corrections that come from real-world experience, its creations lack the coherence and depth of human perception. AI doesn’t have the lived understanding or context, leading to images that can feel abstract or surreal, much like dreams.

Sure, people might not care, but that doesn’t change the facts. Experts aren’t denying the legitimacy of the Panama or Paradise Papers, but they are saying that the idea of megacorporations secretly listening to your microphone and selling you products based on that is false. If they were doing that, it would be pretty easy to find out. Smartphones aren’t some mysterious black box; security engineers and hackers are constantly checking for these kinds of exploits. If corporations were actually spying on us through our phones, it would be the biggest topic at DEFCON. Believing that this could be kept secret would require assuming that all these experts are either paid off or in cahoots with the corporations, which veers into full-blown conspiracy theory territory.

The reverse is just as true:

“People are lazy and life is easier when you just blindly hate things you don’t understand.”

As a network engineer, it’s frustrating to see laymen make outlandish claims about technology with their source being “corpo bad”. I hate corporations too, but it would be an absolute bombshell if it were true. There’s just no possible way that every single hacker and security engineer are in league with the corporations.