This is important context.

There's a big difference between "we bought solar elsewhere but still burn fossil fuels for our datacenters" and "we never use fossil fuels to power our data centers".

Was this before or after Kissinger killed millions of people?

The delivery curve is pretty clearly exponentially increasing, so yes, it would make intuitive sense that delivery is at an all time peak, because delivery is rapidly increasing.

It would be much more concerning if the all time peak was historical, and it was post peak. That would indicate something negative.

Being at an all time peak is a strongly good sign.

How many tons? I own a forest that was historically used for timber, but I am thinking about making biochar at the small single tons level, and burying it into the soil.

Reading both sides is itself a bit of a fallacy. Most problems don't fit neatly into two 'sides'. For example, take gun control -- typically associated with the liberal wing of the democratic party, and opposed by most of the republican party. The leftist wing of American politics, however, is often opposed to gun control. Organizations like the Socialist Rifle Association and John Brown Gun Club and Pink Pistols.

In the case of environmental review, there's also a multitude of different perspectives with different objectives. From indigenous groups whose land was (typically) stolen, to anti-oil activists, to pro-business democrats (like Biden/Clinton) who want to keep profits rolling at the expense of pristine wildlands, to the various concerns of the right. I know plenty of republican folks who are religiously compelled to take care of the earth and oppose oil drilling. I know plenty of republicans who believe that anthropogenic climate change is "impossible".

Quite frankly, it's not wrong to read a few viewpoints, or read only the viewpoints you agree with and just acknowledge there are other viewpoints. Just don't get lost in believing your viewpoint is the only reasoned one.

This is very interesting, and makes me wonder if it's analogous to the old joke that the highest bandwidth pipe you could get was a semi full of DVDs.

I've been curious if someone would eventually run the numbers on something like this to see if it makes economical sense to transmit power in bursts like this.

This appears to be a reference to Mario's "P-Speed", which indicates that raccoon Mario is running fast enough to fly.

Mario, when running at full speed, has a little trill audio.

Thanks, I would have never figured that out :D

I have to say I do like the idea of trying this out literally as I wrote it and testing what happens. :)

I mean it's catnip after all, so the cat may indeed attempt to levitate like Mario in order to collect it.

Maybe 'propane tank'?

I worry we're replacing polluting ICE cars with just as many, polluting EVs. EVs pollute less than cars, but they produce a lot more tire dust and road wear, since those things scale exponentially with the weight of the vehicle.

Tire dust has been shown to damage salmon populations and disrupt endocrine systems.

Yes, improving infra for EVs is an incremental improvement, but we are decades too late for iterative improvements, we need to take more radical action.

Why is there a market rate for water? Shouldn't there be a cost for water without a market?

We shouldn't be selling water at whatever the market will bear, but whatever the cost is to produce clean water (or less). Whatever amount prevents waste but allows everyone access to clean, potable water should be the what is charged.

There is (approximately) no cost of production for water. There is only a cost of extraction. The difference being that there is a limit to how much you can extract. On other words, you can run out of water.

Running out of water is horrible, so it needs to be prevented. Using prices to signal scarcity is generally the least worst solution. In other words, you shouldn't just pay the cost of extraction, but also some of the opportunity cost of everyone else not being able to use your water.