deleted by creator

Look up Lithium Iron phosphate batteries. They will outlive the car they’re in even better than the lithium ion ones that are the majority at the moment. Those lithium ion batteries will also outlive the vehicle they’re in btw. The only ones that won’t are Leaf batteries because either they’re an old chemistry or because nissan cheaper out and didn’t put a coolant loop in them.

Do all cars use LiFePO4? I thought most used Lithium Cobalt Oxide because it has a higher energy density, that’s what’s used in smartphones and laptops. Using LiFePO4 means reducing range and increasing weight. Ditto for Sodium Ion batteries.

All Lithium Cobalt batteries need replacing after about 8 years of regular usage. That’s not great given we still see 20 year old cars in use. I guess there are steps you can take to reduce this, like not charging to 100%, but they all fail sooner or later. All this rapid charging stuff doesn’t exactly help either.

You’re going to have to come up with some serious evidence if you want to say car batteries are not a problem for current gen EVs. Maybe with better Sodium Ion tech they can be extended in lifespan and reduced in cost enough to be practical for most people, but it’s still going to require infrastructure overhaul and won’t be applicable everywhere.

Sustainable agriculture for food is one thing, to make fuel is something completely different and I think you know that but are being obstuse on purpose.

No I am not being obtuse. You talk about agriculture as if it’s impossible to make sustainable. How much extra agriculture would it require compared to what’s needed to feed the world? It’s not something I have looked at, and I would be interested to see if you have statistics on this.

We already have sustainable aviation fuel that is being used in commercial air travel. It’s not certain that Hydrogen will ever be safe enough for air travel. Current battery technology isn’t good enough in terms of energy density to be used here.

Lots of people are very dismissive about hydrogen technology anyway, based on it being difficult to store and inefficient. Do you have evidence counter to this?

Look, I get it. You don’t like what you’re seeing, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong and it’s OK to change and adapt when presented with new information.

That’s not it at all. Lots of people here on Lemmy like to talk the talk about climate change without actually understanding practical or engineering considerations. It’s the same as the socialists and communists who rarely have an economic plan to implement after a revolution.

The future is a mixture of technology that we have, are developing and haven’t even thought of.

That’s precisely why I don’t like you dismissing biofuels out of hand. There are certain applications where batteries just don’t work like aviation. I still am not convinced about lithium batteries as lithium is a fairly limited resource, sodium ion seems like the future of batteries for cars and trains, but sodium ion has lower energy density.

I am not saying biofuels will replace electric vehicles or solutions for grid power like nuclear, wind, solar, and so on. Just that they have a place in the larger strategy. People talk about electric vehicles making sense for most situations especially for city dwellers, I am talking about the 20% or whoever remain. This includes car enthusiasts as well as people who travel large distances on a day to day basis, and of course aviation where energy density, safety and performance are critical.

I will take a look at those sources though. If it’s easy to recycle solar panels that’s a huge boon. When it comes to batteries I think technologies like sodium ion or iron oxide batteries are likely to win out anyway, and those are materials we have in abundance, it’s just a shame about the energy density limitations.

To be honest I didn’t even think about shipping as it only accounts for a small amount of emissions. Vegetable oil makes perfect sense here. Though I would remind you that compression ignition engines in cars can also be designed to run pretty much any fuel you like.

Right, let’s start with old oil. How much do you think is generated world wide? It’s about 1/20th of the amount of oil we use currently and that created not recycled so that number is far lower so really that’s a niche. Likewise wood pellets. Unless you’re actively chopping trees down to make into pellets you’re not going to have any real volume there. Plus as I said previously, all of that takes energy to be made into usable fuel. Where does that energy come from and also why not just use that energy directly?

5% of our current oil demand is still a big improvement. That’s probably enough to move a significant portion or even all of aviation to sustainable fuels. Aviation is one of the places where batteries don’t work yet, and probably not anytime soon either.

As for the last paragraph, no, sorry you’re just misunderstanding that whole arena. Batteries are more than 90% recyclable and that number is going up as we design them to be easier to recycle. Plus that’s most likely 20 years from now on average. As for solar panels they’re aluminium (easily recycled) glass (easily recycled) metals (easily recycled) and silicon (mostly recyclable) and again they’re being designed to be recycled better than they were. Ontop of that they now last up to 40 years with greater than 90% of their original capacity left so basically they’ll outlive most of us on here.

Can you give me some evidence?

We’ve grown plants sustainable for thousands of years except for in the last 150 where we have systematically wrecked the ecology at the same time as massively increasing our population. The average westerner uses 32 times more resources than the average Kenyan. Do you want to have the same lifestyle as they have? Because they want what westerners have so that means we can’t keep going as we are and have to change.

So you’re saying sustainable agriculture is impossible? If so then climate change is inevitable and there is nothing we can do.

You’re forgetting things like used vegetable oil which is waste that would be thrown away otherwise. Same for the stuff wood pellets are made from, they are typically mostly saw dust and other waste products. This should hopefully cover airplanes and maybe diesel trains and some cars for when electric isn’t practical.

Even if you were to start planting crops for biofuels, how much less efficient than solar plus batteries would it be? The problem with solar and especially battery storage is that the materials used to make them are not renewable, and cause all kinds of issues in their mining and manufacturing. We’ve grown plants sustainably for thousands of years now. I’ve yet to see anyone make a solar panel from sustainable or recycled materials.

Why not hybrid or plain ICE vehicles powered by biofuels? Even things like waste vegetable oil can be turned into viable fuel, and it can actually be less environmentally destructive than getting rid of it in other ways. ICE technology is very mature, and we currently produce more food than we need and waste much of it. Why not put it all to some use?

Pretty much any fat could be used in compression ignition engines with the right treatment, any carbohydrates turned into ethanol for spark ignition engines, and all waste wood burned for electric power and domestic heating.

The one that pretends to have elections where political rivals mysteriously die.

What fascists are you talking about? Ukraine is not the fascist party in this war. One of these sides is a dictatorship in all but name.

Someone confusing load-store with RISC again.

This would be totally normal to do in a European country and aren’t part of the local healthcare. I went to the dentist in Spain because finding one in England where I live is a nightmare and kind of expensive. I had a checkup, cleaning, and two x-rays for about €40. You had to book only a few days or maybe 1 week in advance instead of waiting months or having to go private. Didn’t even ask for an x-ray either, that’s their default standard of care for that price. They were able to confirm that I had a wisdom tooth and where it was located thanks to that x-ray. All for less than a good bottle of single malt.

If you need medical care in America or some services like a dentist in England your best bet is to get a cheap flight and leave the country for somewhere cheaper and with higher standards of care. That’s how much better it is. You all need to stop making excuses for your shit healthcare system in places like America and England.

So you do include ephemeral state that’s a copy of database data? If we were including that then every non-static website has plenty of state, but so does every web server. Whatever definition you are using must be quite odd.

I don’t write web applications for a living and I especially don’t write front ends. I do have to ask though:

What information are you actually keeping in the front end or web server? Surely you don’t need any ephemeral state that isn’t already stored in the browser and/or for you like the URL or form details. Only thing I can think of is the session ID, and that’s normally a server side thing.

I mean I’ve written web sites where there is no JavaScript at all, and the server is stateless or close to it. It’s not a difficult thing to do even. All the actual information is in the database, the web server fetches it, embedds it into a HTML template, and sends it to the client. Client doesn’t store anything and neither does the server. Unless I really don’t understand what you mean by state. You might keep some of your server fetches data from another server using REST or SOAP but that’s only used once as well.

The whole conversation was about backend being similar because you can write a stateless server. Have you forgotten? The issue here is a backend isn’t just one service, you can write a stateless service but you are in fact just moving the statefulness to the database server. The whole backend isn’t simpler than the front-end for that reason. It might be simpler for other reasons, though many popular websites need complex backends.

I am not arguing that a stateless service isn’t a useful concept. I get why people might want that. That’s not what this conversation is about. It’s about the backend vs frontend. Backend to me includes databases and other support services.

You still have to consider ACID vs BASE when choosing a database software/provider. It comes from CAP theorem.

If that’s how people want to talk about it they can, but you can’t eliminate statefulness from the whole stack.

Yes that’s a stateless service but not a stateless backend. A backend to me is everything that doesn’t run on the client, including the database. Databases are not stateless, even distributed databases are not stateless. You can’t just spin up more databases without thinking about replication and consistency.

Sure

The only nuances here seem to be: a) very simple websites need little state (but still aren’t stateless) and b) that you can move the state around to make something look stateless within a narrow view.

How am I being obtuse? You have been trying to trivialise the backend and now frontend as well. Backend isn’t just writing PHP or whatever, it’s setting up database servers, authentication proxies, and all that stuff. Not everything can be stateless.

So I was right then. Colour me surprised.