Pelam

I wonder, is axial flux motor as cool sci-fi sounding in German as it is in english?

Ie. a political problem as the grandparent said.

Corporations generally follow a narrow somewhat predictable pattern towards some local maxima of their own value extraction. Since world is not zero sum, it produces value for others too.

Where politics (should) enter the picture is where we somehow can see a more global maxima (for all citizens) and try to drive towards it through some political, hopefully democratic means. (Laws, standards, education, investment, infra etc)

Do you have a reference for that?

One thing that seems obvious, but hasn't been repeated enough IMHO is that injecting more energy (heat) into a chaotic system (climate), won't simply make the average energy (temperature) higher BUT will also proportionally strenghten the chaotic fluctuations (disasters).

But economy, china, developing nations, my personal right to consumption, factor x is making this metric seem worse than it should be, another political thing is more important, technological solution Y will save us, technological solution Z won't help or has flaws... endless list of arguments that derail discussion and end up in effective inaction.

Humanity's capacity to handle an slow creeping existential threat appears to be very bad. Especially when preventing it requires simply stopping / doing less some of the things we are doing.

Apparently the production of greenhouse gasses has gone up in past years regardless of the negotiations aimed at reducing them.

I suspect geoengineering is where this will end up when things start to get really bad.

Question, what are the most viable / cost effective / low risk geoengineering tools?

I can find Beej.us with DDG, but not daverupert.com. Maybe Beej got the problem resolved somehow.

I'd say anything beyond level 3 is likely already unsustainable for longer periods if you want to avoid stress related ilnesses. Depends on other factors of course.

IANAB, but large animal bodies correlate with large brain size. Huge animals like elephants and whales have much bigger brains than humans, but are not considered cognitively equivalent to humans.

Maybe moving and maintaining a body requires body size proportional "raw" computational power and maybe human brains have mostly just qualitative differences not related to mass when compared to animals (ok, and a bit of extra proportional brain mass too).

If this is the case the connection between excercise and cognitive capacity could seem natural. Excercise requires massive neural resources and thus physical excercises also excercise the brain to a large degree and the whatever qualitative bit that humans have "on top" simply rides the wave to some improvement.

And like in any game of minds, it goes into a guessing game: ”Are they thinking of X? They would never admit, but perhaps this and that can be interpreted as signal for X.”

This is fine for some situations, like games, and can even be fun.

It is not ”fun” if you are a paying customer and and X is ”Suddenly kill the service I’m using.”

The only remedy to this is trust. (Which a simple short term zero sum game theoretic analysis does not account for.)

At least not every engineer. I love using older machines and any chance to make things work in a hardware friendly way.

I have to say, I appreciate the insane expertise browser engine developers have in making JS and layouting run fast.

This! Often (actually almost always) time it self is valuable for multiple reasons. Spending precious time in the "meeting room" instead of progressing towards (almost any) implementation can decrease the overall value and increase the risks.

Also some people strongly prefer action over deliberation, especially by a committee so there is also a psychological cost to the team to consider.

With software and a capable team, there can still be an illusion that decisions are cast in stone and can't be changed later, while the opposite is true.

Implementing a solution that is almost there and then making corrections can be both more satisfying and lead to very good results. This of course requires the psychological freedom an flexibility to quickly acknowledge errors in thinking and design and not holding on to "the plan" too tightly.