My dad is going through the VA mental healthcare system. This is the way he explains it to me, "if I had no healthcare at all, it would only be slightly worse than this. And sometimes having no healthcare would actually be better." The US doesn't give a fuck about out veterans despite being the home of the free because of the brave.

I mean, it depends. On one hand, for 99% of all use cases, there are battery/electrical based systems which will eventually replace ICEs. For example, basically all consumer vehicles, a huge portion of "around town" trucking, and basically all train systems will run off of electricity over the next 20-50 years. However, on the other hand, there may be specific and limited use cases where it actually is helpful to have the energy density of chemical fuels. For example, if I wanted to power "flying motorcycle" type vehicle for long periods of time, chemical fuels would be the way to do that simply because of the energy density. Take a small turbine engine, hook it up to a generator, and run to whatever fancy future propulsion system off that. But thats assuming we dont have an unimaginable change to battery/power generation technology.

Honestly, it was all always intended as a means of scamming people. The "decentralized" systems people were advocating were, in fact, highly centralized, just not in the same way. When you really start dogging through Web3.0, you realize that there is nothing unique or groundbreaking that it does AND it is significantly less energy efficient in a time when we should be maximizing efficiencies.

So, let me get this straight, Machiavelli was right the whole time? The less violence one uses, the less likely people will be upset about it? I, personally, am shocked. But on completely serious note, this has been a fact in Political Science for a very long time, some people just refuse to acknowledge it because they like violence.

I mean, yeah, even the thorium process can create high levels of "weapons grade" fissile materials. One of the biggest reasons nuclear power plants aren't being build in "3rd world" nations has much more to do with nuclear weapons proliferation as opposed to energy and electricity controls.

We already have flying cars, they're called private helicopters. We most likely are not going to "flying cars" in the way high-scifi portrays. These are the 3 major problems that immediately jump out to me, 1) we have a lot of gravity on our planet that vehicles are going to have to fight to stay airborne, 2) vehicles **MUST** have at least a certain mass in order to function and be safe, and 3) the resource cost in terms of energy and material for every single person to have their own flying car the way people have and use cars today would be mind boggling. That last point is really what kills it for me.

Not gona lie, my degree is is PoliSci, not Biology or Chemistry, so Im not the best when it comes to accurately using specific terminology. You are absolutely right, I did mean cyanobacteria, thats my bad.

​

Personally, my goal is ensure that people much smarter than me have access to the funding they need so that they can properly manage their organisms/experiments and can work towards producing real world results. I may not be the person to figure any of this out, but I will certainly do what I can to support them.

Iirc, there are actually plants which specifically pick up certain metals from soil to such a degree that the processed plant material can be used for refining. If we really went down the route of bioengineering we could probably "create" (or modify) a form of cytobacteria with the genes to process the target minerals into an "organic ore" which can be processed into usable material.

I think we all experience art a bit differently and each way is valid. For me, art is a lot of things and may have to do with the locational context of the art. Like, just going to the Getty is an experience in and of itself, regardless of the art that's being displayed. However, there are some pieces that will always invoke something, at least within me, regardless of the context. For example, there are a few Beksinski pieces that really speak to me in ways I have difficulty explaining. I had a print of his skeleton lady riding a skeleton horse on my wall for about a year before I learned anything about him or any sort of context of the painting.

Oh yeah! I've seen tons of art that, without any context, has touched my soul in ways I didn't think possible beforehand. Granted, in terms of all the art I've ever seen, it was a relatively small amount that really moved me. But I've seen A LOT of art in my life.

I have yet to see AI "art" that has moved or inspired me the way art produced by actual people has or even made me want to pay money for it. Like, sure, an AI can generate random crap for you based off prompts, but it isn't truly imaginative or creating something new.

Alright yall, you know what this means. This has been decades I'm the making and we should rejoice. All we have to do is feed the AI warhammer models to train off of, give it a prompt of the specific faction/unit/pose you want, and bam GW needs to change their business model.

"Person with limited understanding of reality or modern life attempts to make predictions they aren't qualified to make." There, summarized the article for you. 50 years ago no one could predict with any sort of real accuracy or precision what our world would be like today. The same should be said about the next 50 years.

Why is this in futurology? Like, this is just some lame fluff piece on why unlivable wages totally aren't causing economic collapse throughout this country.