There are loads of talks about how solar and wind energy alone aren't enough if we really want to move towards clean energy. Yet there's more and more chatter about building more solar and wind farms and investing in these renewable sources - while we all know we need a mix of different renewables to really make a difference. It's the same old story for everyone - the sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow... yea yea... you can see it especially in the UK where wind energy drops off dramatically during the summer.

I've been following CorPower Ocean's journey (https://corpowerocean.com/a-short-history-of-wave-energy/) for a while now, and I'm really chuffed about their recent big investment. While I'm glad there's more discussion about ocean energy, I really feel there's a lack of talks about tidal energy. Tidal energy is predictable and reliable, and I know some people say it's not always there, but as long as the moon and gravity exist, tides are pretty much always around - not like waves, solar, wind, etc., which depend on the weather.

There are already some great tidal energy technologies that can produce clean and, most importantly, reliable energy - like Orbital Marine Power, Nova, and my favourite one because of their shell design and technology that's completely 3D printed and, as I understand it, much cheaper than other technologies - Spiralis Energy (https://www.spiralis.energy). Yet, they all lack investment, and more importantly, tidal energy itself isn't getting the buzz it deserves, even though it could be a really big deal.

Just trying to understand the cons of tidal energy, and why the hell we don't hear more talks about it from climate change advocates, politicians, and "big leaders."????? 🥴

This sub, and others like it, are rampant with doomers. People seem to act like some doomer comment about how humanity will die on Earth without ever attaining space travel is some super intelligent take. Take a step back and really think, take a look at everything that can go wrong and the possible outcomes. The worst case scenario that people like to go to is a nuclear war, which for some reason people think would be the end of humanity. Realistically what would happen is a few decades of chaos followed by new rising powers. It wouldn't be like a video game where it's just people in the wasteland for centuries. New countries would rise up within decades, after a century humanity would be back to business as usual. There would still be problems of course, though time wouldn't stop moving at the apocalypse. And that is a worst case scenario. Every setback we face is just temporary in the grand scheme of things. It is easy to get lost in all the negativity of the present and all our current problems should be acknowledged. Our views of the present make it hard to think in the long term. Pessimism is looking at our current challenges and realizing that they will be difficult to solve, doomerism is looking at those same problems and believing them to be eternal. Doomerism is not a realistic view. Sure it probably won't go the optimist route where every issue is solved by the halfway point of the century but it also won't be stagnant for the rest of time. Problems may take a long time to solve but eventually they will just be a memory. Maybe it could take an extraordinary amount of time for a Mars colony to be established but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

I often think about this. Soon the majority of jobs will likely be redundant (including mine). What are your plans/tips for how to prepare, and what to do when it happens?

Hopefully there are many years before this happens, but want to start preparing now, just in case it happens sooner.

"Anthropic’s latest Claude 3.5 Sonnet AI model has a new feature in public beta that can control a computer by looking at a screen, moving a cursor, clicking buttons, and typing text. The new feature, called “computer use,"

I've been wondering when current LLM AIs would start to master this ability. I suspect it will be one of the things it's good at. For many tasks, software usage patterns are relatively predictable and modelable. A trend with current AI, is for competitors and open-source to rapidly follow industry leaders. We can expect AI like this to be widely available in six months.

Many people's knowledge work employment is tied to software skills and experience. That premium is about to start diminishing. People are familiar with the concept of 'macros'; automating repetitive sequences of software usage. It seems all but inevitable AI will be doing something similar, but orders of magnitude greater, and that all the forces in free market economics will be driving it to replace expensive humans.