Charging a small amount – such as 50 Australian cents in Queensland – was a good way to ensure that public transport attracts only passengers who need to travel, he added.
I don’t understand. What does this mean? Are they afraid of homeless people or something?
It’s fine that you feel upset, everyone has emotions. It’s what we do with them that matters. It’s a good thing you asked here and that the responses mostly aren’t hurtful.
If you don’t feel like you can talk to your girlfriend about it, I invite you to go to a mosque and try to get to know a few Muslims. Or if you have Muslim friends, try to talk to them about relationships and about women dating. Also, if you do want to talk to your girlfriend about it, try to be the listener. Do not push back, try to be understanding, give a space where she feels comfortable to go into the details. Just don’t pressure her.
This is a good relationship to discover how you deal with discomfort regarding the issue of acceptance by others. It will give you an opportunity to practice. You might handle it well, take the advice you got from here and apply it successfully. You might also end up without a girlfriend, but that’s all part of the journey. You’ll get to know yourself better.
Good luck.
If your joke might be offensive to anyone, its probably best to save it for outside of the workplace if you share it at all.
That’s not good advice. Any joke can be offensive to someone - especially when people are committed to being offended.
Interesting. That doesn’t show on mbin. Maybe the instance is defederated.
Would fit really well in [email protected]
What a nice change. The only thing missing is more bike lanes. The raised car sewer is only for pedestrians, but a bike lanes would’ve been a great addition.
@[email protected] What a coincidence to be sponsored by 80.000 hours. I was looking for a new job with positive impact on the world!
P.S cool that you’re on the fediverse! Will you be uploading videos here too?
For PFAS that definitely isn’t true
In the new EPA study, experts added oxidizing substances to water contaminated with PFASs and heated the liquid above its critical temperature of 374 degrees Celsius at a pressure of more than 220 bars. During this process, the water becomes what is called supercritical: it is neither a gas nor a liquid. In this state, even water-repellent substances such as PFASs dissolve much more readily, and at the same time, the state accelerates chemical reactions.
Yes, but will they all be harmful?
Can the degraded chemicals withstand sustained exposure to 500C?
That made no sense at all. Do you think toxic water is 100 toxins or that when somebody is sick they become one big walking disease?
And “water can’t become irradiated” is a great take. So radioactive radiation has no effect on water whatsoever? “High energy particles don’t exist and they can’t hurt you🧠”
This, I like. The water would be radioactive though, wouldn’t it? I wonder if “exchanging” the unknown toxins for radioactivity in the dispelled water would be better or worse. But, it could maybe help decompose some of the toxic chemicals during in the process.
Yeah, a lot of responses forget the name of the community and go straight into debate mode about something that isn’t even asked. I don’t think it’s a surprise that people are enjoying AI so much more than engaging with humans. AI will just give you an answer (be it wrong or not) without trying to one up you or prove that “you’re stupid, shut up”.
You’re ignoring that I’m responding to the messages that say it’s wildly inefficient by saying things can change. Nowhere am I debating it’s not inefficient. You’re arguing with a strawman you built.
You say 1000, another poster says 11, and yet another gives another number I can’t remember.
If I’m reading the graph right on page 20 of Homo Sapiens’ Energy Dependence and Use Throughout Human History and Evolution, in 1820 we needed about 20 EJ. That’s a 31 fold increase to ~530 EJ in 2010 (190 years). Looking at the chart, you can see that the rate of increase has sped up, not slowed down. In 1960 it was ~120 EJ making it a 4x increase in years.
It might take time, but it’s not impossible. And unless a great calamity happens upon us, we will not stay at our current tech level for another 200 years.
I understand the pessimism, but my question wasn’t about “is this possible within our lifetimes” or “how much energy would this need” but “Could wastewater plants simply heat up water past 500C to decompose all chemicals and output clean water?”. I just want to know if with our understanding the water will be clean after going through a procedure where it’s heated past 500C. That could be once or multiple times, it could involve adding a filter, removing deposited waste material, etc.
Yes, with our current energy output it would not be possible, but I’m asking about whether even theoretically it could be an easier way to clean water. Maybe in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years it’s a method worth pursuing.
Why would that be necessary? Does led not react to magnetic fields?
Thank you for the only response that actually answers the main question and linking to a scientific paper. Much appreciated.
Regarding harmful chemicals that do not decompose beyond 500C, could it be more likely that the number of such chemicals/materials (known and unknown) is much lower than the number of chemicals/materials at the temperatures used for current clarification processes?
Over-promising and under-delivering are normal - that goes for both directions. I think it’s undeniable that machine learning / AI has been improving at a steady pace. Sure, the current cycle will reach its peak, but there will be another and another. I don’t believe AGI is a matter of if, more a matter of when. Whatever technology they’re using now is not it, but it may play a part and even if it doesn’t become AGI, it will be one more thing to tick off and explore new roads.
As someone said “this is the worst AI will ever be”. It’ll keep getting better. We just have to be prepared for the next cycle and not be caught off-guard. But knowing humans, we are terrible at long-term planning and preparing. The next cycle will catch the majority with their pants down and we will be scrambling to pull them up while whatever it is was developed changes our world yet again.