dillekant

I do this. If you want to actually want to use or donate the processing power, this is kind of a good thing. However, there are a lot of downsides:

• Computers are generally much lower power than a heater. This makes them very slow to "react" to heating needs. Heating a small room, even with a 500W PC, could take an hour or maybe more.
• Heaters have a thermostat, which computers don't, so even though they are very laggy, they also don't stop heating when the temperature is right. This means they can overshoot and make the room uncomfortably hot.
• You could set up an external thermostat but then you need a load which can be switched on and off.
• I was using folding@home, but the work items take a long time, and switching them on and off will increase the time taken to resolve the work item, which in turn means the system could get annoyed and use someone else's computer to resolve the work item faster, or worse, blacklist your computer.
• Using your PC to generate heat will use up its maximum lifetime. The fans aren't built to be running at max speed all the time, the CPU & GPU could wear out, and the power systems will also wear as time goes on. You sort of have to align that lifetime against usage. This is likely fine if you see the computation as a donation or if you have important stuff to compute, but it's probably not worth just wasting the cycles.

I do agree that Solarpunk as a genre is extremely nascent. There's barely anything which could really constitute Solarpunk, much less something cohesive.

cuckoo?

Toll roads aren't bad, it's all in the details. The problem is that the government is often "captured" and therefore has no incentive to have a fair contract, so they'll add clauses like

• If the company loses money because the government does something, the government will pay them. This often prevents the government from reducing or removing the toll road / other privately owned resource.
• The government can't "compete" with the toll road, either with another road or (sometimes) through public transport.
• The government will often, as a form of pork-barrelling, offer people reimbursements for the toll road usage, thereby funneling tax payer money into the private company.
• Toll roads are tax deductible.

Ideally, toll roads encourage people to take the train.

There were a bunch of game company closures in Australia in the 2000s and now there are a bunch of Australian indie devs, as an example. The cycle takes a long time though.

I think this may be the way the explanation comes across. Historically, there were many lakes, but now the lakes don't exist because there's a large city there instead. So, to replicate the behaviour of the lakes, you need to get the water to traverse rock to remove some impurities and then settle in aquifers.

"Are you sure you want me to dress up like Optimus Prime?"

I may as well respond to the Youtube video here given the age of the other post:

I think despite the disclaimers, the video is actually encouraging people to blow up a pipeline, but to do it right. It offers some examples:

• If you are part of the community, you can get access to the materials at scale, something the loners in this movie couldn't do (and therefore risked their lives). That is, if you want to do this, a lot of people need to / should know about it and help you get the materials you need.
• The chemistry that is being used is unsafe, so don't just copy-paste it. I'd think that was obvious but, I think the specific thing the video is trying to tell you is that bombs can be made safely, and anyone trying should do so in a way that their safety is not compromised.
• The processes and procedures used in the film are unsafe or nonsensical. This is only really made in the context that no one should copy the film.

The conclusion is a bit crazy though, that the expert opinions they got in the film purposely made the bomb making unsafe or that informants should be trusted. I think more likely is the idea that they wanted to depict the characters as a bit derpy, and the plan as crazy and dangerous. That's what ratchets up the tension.

• A community all organising together doesn't make sense because the point of the book is that the community is currently against property destruction (and the movie by extension is trying to advocate for that community engaging in property destruction, that's arguably what happens at the end).
• Safe bomb-making techniques would make the film laborious and less interesting
• Not trusting the informant wouldn't leave a twist in the film.
• The video seems to be advocating for a how-to guide rather than a fictional film.

The video is a bit "If you've played the Uncharted series don't try rock climbing like Nathan Drake".

Saw it recently and couldn't have put the points better myself. High Five Five ;)

oh wow quite a while ago too. Thanks for the link.

The movie doesn't pull punches, it's very much the "how" and not the "why".

Yeah I was pretty upset by this like it seems the other commenters. The issue is that climate change isn't "solved" or "not solved". We are, day by day, locking in deaths, locking in ecological damage. The longer we take, the worse it gets. That's not doomerism that's just reality.

As for doing something, well yeah we have to do something because the longer we take the worse it gets.

The real problem here is that most mainstream politicians are trying to "balance" issues like "the economy" (AKA stuff humans made up) and "Capitalism" (more made up stuff) and "climate" (a real thing). Literally the easiest thing to change here (collectively) is our minds, but it's the one thing the politicians won't do.