Interesting article, thank you. :)

I wouldn't get one for myself because I have lots of big plants (hazel, cherry and sea-buckthorn), but it makes me wonder - why did some species of fungi start glowing? Did they do it by accident, for no good reason?

News of the sentencing reached the public broadcaster here in Estonia, including Dale Vince's comment that "this resembles Russia or maybe North Korea" and Chris Packham's assessment that "this is a threat against freedom of speech".

I hope the judgement gets overturned on appeal, and the law that enabled the judgement gets scrapped or rewritten.

I also suspect that the next people who want to stop traffic will not choose peaceful assembly as their method, but will use far more dangerous methods - sabotage from distance, e.g. no more traffic lights on a big intersection. Needless to say, state will cry "terrorism" then, and that is not a desirable outcome, so I hope nobody feels compelled to prove the point.

Knowing psychology, almost any PR advisor will advise to temporarily cease media attacks against a person who's been shot.

As a minimum, messages may need to be reworded, because Trump is likely to change his messaging after his narrow escape.

Some notes:

• almost no doubt: this will have a mobilizing effect for Trump supporters ("our great leader is being attacked", etc)

• possibly: this will improve Trump's ratings among voters with no clear political preference (a big story where he's not the villain is what he needs)

• pattern: historically, surviving an assassination attempt has improved a candidate's chances of getting elected; in the most recent example, Slovakia's prime minister Fico enjoyed a boost in ratings while in hospital after being seriously wounded

I don't blame Democrats for temporarily ceasing campaign advertisement. Two principles dictate this: "you don't kick a person who is already down" (Trump was incredibly lucky and isn't) and "you don't attack someone who has martyrdom effect". Generally, you wait until the dust settles. Democrats too will wait until the dust settles. They will also check the popularity ratings and decide how to proceed.

In my opinion, Democrats would strongly benefit from a younger candidate. I would advise getting someone under 55 to run. Among the wider population, not enough people understand that, as things are, the Democratic candidate is Kamala Harris, her name is just currently Joe Biden. :o

Overall, it seems that Trump has considerable chances of getting elected president. Preventing that will require exceptional effort and considerable luck. Only if the Democrats manage to paint a clear picture of what a Trump presidential term would bring about, and only if that picture causes their voters to show up and vote nearly without exception - only then will things turn out differently.

My personal view from Eastern Europe - contingency plans for a Trump presidency ceasing aid to Ukraine have a very high probability of occurrence now (estimated time: early 2025). Over here, everyone and their cat will researching cheap weapons systems to replace things that only the US can provide. I think that group will now include myself.

Thanks for the news, but also - thanks for posting a proper summary. :)

(So many videos have only the YouTube-compiled summary, which is typically totally off topic.)

The car is correctly represented, about 0.15 KWh / km is what one gets.

However, the positioning of the e-bike looks strange to me. I've looked at previous studies and the e-biker has always been first in efficiency - because the efficiency of a motor far exceeds the efficiency of human digestion and muscles, while weight and speed remain comparable to an ordinary cyclist.

I think someone has calculated food energy incorrectly, or assumed that e-bikes move faster than they do. :)

I should add that, to my knowledge, there is no such rule in c/solarpunk. The rules are:

• be constructive: there is no need of another internet space full of competition, negativity, rage etc.;
• no bigotry, including racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia, homophobia or xenophobia;
• be empathic: empathy is more rebellious than a middle finger;
• no porn and no gore: let’s keep this place easy to manage;
• no ads / spamming / flooding, we don’t want to buy/consume your commodified ideas;
• occasional self-promotion by active members is fine.

Rules pertaining to talk about war, weapons, the military, weapons industry, agression vs. defense, imperialism vs. not conquering other lands, discussing history or politics, or staying strictly on topic - I don't see such rules.

I have the feeling that the rule was in the head of the moderator in question, which is not good at all - a moderator should stick to published rules.

Strongly disagree.

Disarmament is feasible (and very smart, because war is a terrible waste) if the other side is understanding and willing. In the 1980-ties, the USSR under Gorbachev was willing to mutually reduce nuclear weapons. Gorbachev also ended the attempt to make Afghanistan into a Soviet satellite state and loosened the rules in the Soviet bloc enough for most of Eastern Europe to leave the bloc. Russia under Putin has not shown any willingness to widthdraw or disarm. In fact, it is making desperate attempts to restart all the Soviet military industries, double down and overwhelm Ukraine.

(for those unaware: the war is Gaza is statistically a gang shootout compared to the war in Ukraine, the intensity differs so much that I'm not even addressing it - it's practically over, Hamas attacked and lost)

NATO countries are of course increasing military production - ironically at such a leisurely pace that EU has been able to supply some 0.3 million of the 1 million shells promised to Ukraine, while North Korea has been able to hand 2 million shells to Russia. I don't see a case for claiming that NATO is arming too fast. I see a case for claiming that NATO is arming ridiculously slow, at a pace which might allow Russia to force an unfavourable deal on Ukraine.

I would predict: if Putin wins in Ukraine, or gets considerable parts of Ukraine as war spoils, in a decade's time, the next war will be Russia vs. Eastern Europe. Most of the warring parties will be NATO members then. And indeed, those countries (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria) - they have all rapidly raised their military production and purchases.

About escalation: so far, all the long-range offensive weapons supplied by NATO have come with the strict condition that they may not be fired at Russian territory, and Ukraine has respected that - firing them only at occupied Ukrainian territory. Not a single ATACMS or Storm Shadow has landed in a Russian nuclear bunker, not to mention a seat of government. Ukraine is using Western missiles to shoot at its own (occupied) territory, hardly an escalation.

(a side note: Ukrainian-made drones do land in Russia regularly, mostly destroying aircraft that would bomb Ukraine - and World War 3 has not broken out because of that)

To finish up, I'd like to point out that the US is not even scheduled to give airplanes to Ukraine. The F-16 planes are being given by Denmark and the Netherlands.

P.S.

What's the rationale for calling Biden "Genocide Joe"? If that's an appropriate nickname, what do we call heads of state who start an actual war? :o

P.P.S.

Problems have differing levels of urgency. Wars tend to have the highest. Several EU countries have indeed been forced to scale back their climate plans because they don't have enough money to make the green transition and help Ukraine defend against Russia at the same time. The rise in interest rates has also contributed - it's harder to finance projects with a loan. However, they have also made incredibly fast pace at curbing their use of Russian oil and gas. Ironically, by proving what a fine seller Russia is ("run for the hills" grade of fine), Putin has contributed greatly to the transition off fossil fuels. Once he's deposed, tried and jailed, he should get a medal for that. :)

It's actually a bit more complicated. :) They made vessels from copper when they could - copper is a superb heat conductor. But copper gets toxic fast when you cook acidic food. It gets worse if you don't clean your copper vessels. Wikipedia tells:

Copper is reactive with acidic foods which can result in corrosion, the byproducts of which can foment copper toxicity. In certain circumstances, however, unlined copper is recommended and safe, for instance in the preparation of meringue, where copper ions prompt proteins to denature (unfold) and enable stronger protein bonds across the sulfur contained in egg whites. Unlined copper is also used in the making of preserves, jams and jellies.

Despite not having adequate chemistry or medicine, people in old times had a clue - they saw that copper sometimes fouled and turned green, and suspected this was not good, preferring tin-lined copper vessels as the economical alternative to silver-lined copper vessels.

(Needless to say, industries of that time didn't produce stainless steel - maybe some alchemist blacksmith knew enough to make it, but it was not a thing.)

Lining copper pots and pans prevents copper from contact with acidic foods. The most popular lining types are tin, stainless steel, nickel and silver.

...but the chemistry of the time being what it was - shoddy - sometimes tin was contaminated with lead (Pb), sometimes it was deliberately adulterated with lead, and shit happened.

In the middle ages, guilds had a system of proof marks and inspectors to ensure craftsmen wouldn't add too much lead to tin alloys. The Nuremberg standard for example specified 1 part of lead against 10 parts of tin, but in Luzern, Switzerland, a problematic alloy was used.

As for Romans...

However, the use of leaden cookware, though popular, was not the general standard of use. Copper cookware was used far more generally and no indication exists as to how often sapa was added or in what quantity. (Grape syrup)

...and that is why Chat cannot be trusted to build houses. It hallucinates:

Exhibit A:

At its core, this building incorporates an innovative vertical farming system. Towering gardens thrive within its walls,

Exhibit B:

The building’s walls are constructed using rammed earth or compressed earth blocks, utilizing the surrounding soil and natural resources abundantly available in the area.

One can go vertical, or one can go rammed earth. One does not go vertical with rammed earth. :) And wind turbines attached to building structure are a nuisance. An efficient turbine needs to be clear of obstacles.

Beyond that, it has done a good job. The write-up was streamlined with my cultural sensibilities, before it collided head on with my sense of engineering. :)

More information can be found here: https://veilid.com/framework

I read it, haven't tested it - commentary below.

Before I go into commentary, I will summarize: my background is from I2P - I helped build bits and pieces of that network a decade ago. As far as I can tell, Veilid deals in concepts that are considerably similar to I2P. If the makers have implemented things well, it could be a capable tool for many occasions. :) My own interest in recent years has shifted towards things like Briar. With that project, there is less common ground. Veilid is when you use public infrastructure to communicate securely, with anonymity. Briar is when you bring your own infrastructure.

• Networking

Looks like I2P, but I2P is coded in Java only. Veilid seems to have newer and more diverse languages (more capability, but likely more maintenance needs in future). I2P has a lot of legacy attached by now, and is not known for achieving great performance. A superficial reading of the network protocol doesn't enable me to tell if Veilid will do better - I can only tell that they have thought of the same problems and found their own solutions. I would hope that when measured in a realistic situation, Veilid would exceed the performance of I2P. How to find out? By trying, in masses and droves...

• Cryptography

Impressive list of ciphers. Times have changed, I'm not qualified to say anything about any of them. It leaves the appearance that these people know what they are doing, and are familiar with recent developments in cryptography. They also seem to know that times will change ("Veilid has ensured that upgrading to newer cryptosystems is streamlined and minimally invasive to app developers, and handled transparently at the node level."), which is good. Keeping local storage encrypted is an improvement over I2P - last time I worked with I2P, an I2P router required external protection (e.g. Linux disk encryption) against seizing the hardware. With mobile devices ever-present everywhere, storage encryption is a reasonable addition. I notice that the BlockStore functionality is not implemented yet. If they intend to get it working, storage encryption is a must, of course.

• RPC (remote procedure calls)

Their choice of a procedure call system is unfamiliar to me, but I read about it. I didn't find anything to complain about.

• DHT (distributed hash table)

Looks somewhat like I2P.

• Private routing

Looks very much like I2P.

This is such a puzzle, thank you. :)

I checked Sci-Hub - no matches for "proton battery", neither for "hydrogen flow battery".

Falling back on chemistry - I recalled that "dissolving a concentrated acid in water should be done with care". It is exothermic, water may suddenly boil and splash acid all over the careless chemist.

By definition, acids are substances that can easily give protons (hydrogen ions) to other chemicals. A classic reaction would be acid + base = salt + water (acid gives the H and base gives the OH, so we get H2O), the other components of the acid and base form the salt.

If there is only water on the other side, I thought "the reaction is acid giving protons to water". Which acid? How many protons? Those questions might determine the amount of power available. And of course - how to control the reaction and extract electrical power? Browsing Wikipedia, I came across two pages: protonation and deprotonation and a sample reaction with sulphuric acid, but found no reference to electricity production, though potential / voltage is obviously available when ions are being created and transfered.

Then, finally I found the RMIT press release, and understood that acid is not a central participant of this reaction:

https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2018/mar/all-power-to-the-proton

Some pickings:

The working prototype proton battery uses a carbon electrode as a hydrogen store, coupled with a reversible fuel cell to produce electricity.

It’s the carbon electrode plus protons from water that give the proton battery it’s environmental, energy and potential economic edge, says lead researcher Professor John Andrews.

During charging, the carbon in the electrode bonds with protons generated by splitting water with the help of electrons from the power supply. The protons are released again and pass back through the reversible fuel cell to form water with oxygen from air to generate power. Unlike fossil fuels, the carbon does not burn or cause emissions in the process.

The researchers’ experiments showed that their small proton battery, with an active inside surface area of only 5.5 square centimetres (smaller than a 20 cent coin), was already able to store as much energy per unit mass as commercially-available lithium ion batteries. This was before the battery had been optimised.

“Future work will now focus on further improving performance and energy density through use of atomically-thin layered carbon-based materials such as graphene, with the target of a proton battery that is truly competitive with lithium ion batteries firmly in sight,” Andrews said.

There is a photo of the three scientists with a cell and multimeter, and the meter reads 1.1559 volts, so we know the cell voltage is low, but not impractically low. A link to a scientific article and a description of the cell follows:

"Technical feasibility of a proton battery with an activated carbon electrode"

The latest version combines a carbon electrode for solid-state storage of hydrogen with a reversible fuel cell to provide an integrated rechargeable unit.

During charging, protons produced by water splitting in a reversible fuel cell are conducted through the cell membrane and directly bond with the storage material with the aid of electrons supplied by the applied voltage, without forming hydrogen gas.

(this implies that overcharging results in hydrogen formation, like in lead acid batteries - the solution is to have it vented typically)

In electricity supply mode this process is reversed; hydrogen atoms are released from the storage and lose an electron to become protons once again. These protons then pass back through the cell membrane where they combine with oxygen and electrons from the external circuit to re-form water.

(this leads to the question of oxygen availability on the other side, and how to ensure it's adequate - gases are a nuisance due to their low density, but water can dissolve only so much oxygen, and this could limit the power output or storage capacity of the cell, however, if one built a flow battery, a redundantly large mass of water could be used to supply oxygen - but I'd really like to know if they used gaseous or dissolved oxygen)

Therefore, in the proton battery, many processes in the conventional hydrogen-based energy storage system that cause energy losses and irreversible entropy increases are omitted, such as hydrogen gas evolution and compression, and the splitting of molecular hydrogen into protons in fuel cell mode.

A summary of the scientific paper:

The experimental results reported here show that a small proton battery (active area 5.5 cm2) with a porous activated carbon electrode made from phenolic resin and 10 wt% PTFE binder was able to store in electrolysis (charge) mode very nearly 1 wt% hydrogen, and release on discharge 0.8 wt% in fuel cell (electricity supply) mode. A significant design innovation is the use of a small volume of liquid acid within the porous electrode to conduct protons (as hydronium) to and from the nafion membrane of the reversible cell. Hydrogen gas evolution during charging of the activated carbon electrode was found to be very low until a voltage of around 1.8 V was reached. Future work is being directed towards increasing current densities during charging and discharging, multiple cycle testing, and gaining an improved understanding of the reactions between hydronium and carbon surfaces.

So, the acid was not a reaction participant, but a proton conductor.

If anyone has a copy of the paper, please share - it seems like it would be interesting. :)