What we need is substance you could inject and then use to make a high Precision map of the brain... Would be the beginning of making potentially full copies of the human brain which then could be rendered in a compiter someday.

I really need brain computer interfaces I just want to copy the entire human brain and then have it sitting around until be rendered in a computer.

Planet can't really survive if the lifespan of humans is too long...but copying the human brain into a computer would allow you to offer effective imnortalty without needing infinite resources and Dysons spheres and could make longer distance space travel possible because you're 100% tied to your squishy little biological body.

Implants on the others and I don't see really having a huge Market.

Holographic displays and better ways to interact with the computer sure, but the benefit of a neurological implant is going to have to be in the realm of f****** huge to be worth the effort even just injecting gel into your brain whatever that might do.

They are stupid/greedy to do that, they'd rather just smoke em they got em.

Commodity wealth is about supply and demand. If you could really bring back that much mass to Earth you'd drive the value way down. I don't see where debts matter as you wind up with robotic labor that can do 80% of our jobs. We really do have plenty of resources here on Earth and limit surface area. The BULK of the planet is huge compared to just the bit of habital land we live on, not just the surface is huge compared to the land, but the 3 dimensional volume of the planet is filled with PROBABLY anything we need for hundreds of years.

The premise to space mining is that you constantly overcome gravity and vast distances that all cost energy instead of drilling. I don't see many scenarios where space mining is more efficient than the nearly unlimited bulk of the planet.

Sooo occasionally you might pinpoint a high value asteroid and go get it, but a lot of just trash so the logistics here are not the easiest and if you have robots building robots than the cost of commodities has gone down on Earth so much that there isn't demand for space mining.

For space mining to make sense you need the commidity to really be in that much demand that you don't just mine it from Earth and with robotic automation and recyling and limited surface area/peak popultion around 10 billion I don't see it being practical.

Robotic mining means commodities are all worth less because demand is met more easily with more efficient automated processes. The same pattern will happen in all industries.

Money and value are still ONLY about demand, the easiest way to meet demand is all you really need or want to do usually. Space mining is too complex compared to demand, imo. Kind of like nuclear power probably can't beat solar, the simplest thing that gets the job done wins.

I don't see any use for mining the moon personally. It sounds a bit silly. We will have robots building robots in a few decades and humans haven't even touched 99% of the resources of the planet since all we did is mine a fraction of the 1% of the planet that is the crust.

So ... how will it ever really make sense to mine in space when all the best resources are here on earth without a gravity well to have to leave and re-enter constantly?

The commodity you find in space would have to be very unique and very hard to sythethize here on Earth, that seems very unlikely.

The only reason to mine the moon or Mars is to build stuff there, not to take it back to Earth, so realistically it doesn't matter.

Who builds better labor robots here on Earth and gets robots mining here on Earth and then has robots building robots.. THAT IS WHAT MATTERS. That determines how many of these eh.. moonshot ideas you can take on at once, the standard of living, the rate we combat climate change.. and of course even space mining .. though probably not to bring back to Earth.

The Moon and Mars are 100% scientific missions with no commercialization potential. Humans cannot live in these conditions long because of the low gravity and we have no solution at all for that, which means for now everything in space is for research. Maybe it's private research, but it's still just research.

I say skip right to holograms. Things like 8k 2D is mostly worthless because our eyes don't care about 4k vs 8k enough. We need other senses to get involved. Like a TV that produces smells would be a lot more immersive than just 8k. A good sound system will be more immersive than going from 4k to 8k and the tech looks far more prone to failure.

LED is an LCD display with LED lights instead of fluorescent. They are really just LED-lit LCD displays. The LED allows more even lighting, more brightness and longer lifespan in theory.

We don't need AI to automate most things. AI will be for figuring out very big problem and won't be like proliferate in Everday products.

The limits now are not chips, it's definitely the programming. Quantum chips will only have specific uses and silicon will keep doing most of the stuff.

A super smart AI would be nice, but what we need far more is just lots of robotic labor/automation to lower the costs of everything and increase the standard of living once our economic systems catch up to the new reality.

You can probably automate the majority of jobs just with silicon/machine learning and good programming. Most jobs don't require the ridiculous amounts of computation you can get from quantum. Really the most useful thing a real AI could do right now is to replace the 98% junk code that's currently out there to actually get the most of the chips. That or solve all human behavior problems, but I'm not holding my breath any AI will ever be that smart.

Qantum sounds useful for some stuff, but realistically silicon can do so much and will still improve. The limitations right now are clearly programming, not really chips.

People have this way of thinking MORE is always better/useful, but it's not. The easiest thing that gets the job done is the most useful. The simplest design that does the job is better than the complex design that does more than you need. Getting that through to most people is hard, getting it through to a bunch of future tech fans is even harder.

Path of least resistance is the truly proven strategy and that also means path of least complexity. It's kind of like simplifying a math problem is the more premium version of logic than leaving it as complex as possible, but with engineering and cost of operation.

North America will tend to be insulated from global instability caused by climate change because it has much lower population density than any other big developed country.

The geography of the United States isn't that bad for climate change, but the big benefit is like there's only like two big countries besides the US and there's just not that many people compared to almost everywhere else in the world.

So there's basically like no way that's not a significant benefit and like as long as Yellowstone doesn't explode or something North America will probably be the premium location on the planet for many decades.

But of course you have to be able to put up with Americans and that might be a significant challenge.

The downside is that you know Americans have been on top too long and they've kind of gotten fat lazy and disconnected from reality so you could argue America is a bit more mentally fragile and most certainly spoiled.

We don't even know if we will ever achieve AI for real at this point so we don't need rules.

We have to see what AI really turns out to be before we have any chance of making rules about it.

The current crop of stuff is not ai and it can get smart and kill humans.

AI is most likely going to be a very specific instance of custom hardware not something you can Mass proliferate easily so you probably not going to just all of a sudden have a whole bunch of a eyes pop up.

Building an AI will be like building a supercomputer in the past where it's a you know very custom build and each is a little bit different and you don't really have that many of them.

Because of the way AI works you know you might not really need many AI supercomputers doing the back end highly complex problems. Most of the work is going to be done by like sensors and machine learning that has nothing to do with AI.

AI is not required for the vast majority of automation, only the most complex problems with the most variables. Machine learning can handle everything else.

There's no reason to think each AI would be the same... This is like custom evolution and you're probably going to get different products entirely out of different processes.

They could try, but once ppl see it work they probably won't go back.

You have to keep in mind that lots of companies already do that and they mostly use it as a way to pay you less for their own billable hours instead of like as general overhead for the business like workers are usually paid as on payroll.

For the sake of getting adoption I wouldn't mention that option!

I think Starlink will generally have problems competing with cellulars never ending growth and speed increases. There just aren't that many people in the world that need the service AND can afford it and the demographics of people who travel globally and need starlink also seem small.

When you look at their total subscribers, the business model does not look good at all. All that work and maintenance for like 400-500k users?

I think it's actually more useful as a military tool than a consumer product because that's where you can get people to afford expensive communications in remote area they mostly overwise would not need.

Plus cellular will just keep getting better and cable and fiber will keep expanding, so the most unique use is probably military, not global roaming.

It really doesn't matter. It's just more total crime and deaths, particularly from guns. The outcome either way is more gun regulation. The 90s "Assault Weapon Ban" was passed to curb gang violence. The upside is crime is still lower than the 80s or 90s, the downside is that it's definitely trending up and mass shootings being much higher than ever is definitely adding to the public's desire for action. Soooo you probably don't need as high of a crime rate to get the same discontent from the public.

Sure, but you are also side stepping the part where the US has way more gun deaths than all it's peers. The fact we could have guns be the top killer in that demographic is still an impressively out of line stat for a developed nations.

It's more like what you'd expect in a third world country.

Man you know.. in this Day and age I would be using anything but helicopters

Come on this headline has to be like a little bit of a joke right... The wood is already trapped carbon.

It helps that you don't vaporize the mineral after you extract it!

That's just f****** horrible!

Is it just my bias/imagination or is there a solid trend in very significantly underpredicting ice melt?

If I ran this whole show ice melt would be the top metric and we'd be seriously planning solar blocking because we don't even know that the natural peak temps of the Holocene (our current interglacial cycle) are too hot for modern society. If ice melt is this bad at these levels and PPMs a projected to hit 600-1000 in most likely scenarios... how else are you going to not kill a couple billion people and cause mass global breakdown?

If everybody used ice melt as the main metric they might not continuously underpredict the threat!

Anybody who thinks globalism would go away anytime soon has lost their mind. Globalism will be around about as long as we need global trade, which is probably forever.

Globalism doesn't just mean you make stuff in other countries. In many cases to compete in a region you have to build infrastructure there. To sell you commodities you need a 'commodity plant' and the logistics of having the processing plant near the materials and customers doesn't change all that much even with unlimited automation. You will always have globalism because you will always have modern trade and manufacturing and they will dictate these shared mutual development scenarios.

You want resource X, long term you probably have to give the source country a share of the industry, it's not an especially complicated idea and it's not going away.

It's also the single biggest form of wealth redistribution and normalization of massive wealth difference between nations. There has been no greater charity to the developed world in all human history than opening up the doors of globalism to break off the shackles of having developing nations closely tied to developed nations, which is how we did it before globalization and just meant more global poverty.

Isolationists may like it, but the end result is lower global GDP growth and that does come back to haunt the developed nations too in less of that awesome developed market growth where you see the biggest profit margins still. You also lose global influence with less global trade and industrial cooperate, which is all globalism means.

To be against globalism is basically to be against global trade and it's a rather ridiculous position. It's right up there with trying to blame thousands of years of human greed on capitalism. Like humans need capitalism to be greedy! We don't even need language to be greedy! We are greed incarnate!

Try to eliminate visual distractions.

I’d say 50-100 years for high Fidelity access to our brains, including probably the ability to copy and render them in a computer eventually.