I'm really pissed of this "I'm sad 'cause I'm poor. So if I had money I would be happy."
(Poverty imply sadness) does not imply (wealth imply hapiness). That's basic formal logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition
The Contraposition is (not sadness imply not poverty). So, If you are happy, you have money.
Expressed differently, if all the poor are sad, we can state that a happy person is not poor. But we cannot state anything about a rich person being happy or not.
Nope.
It would realize how much more efficient it would be to simulate 10billions humans instead of actually having 10billions human. So it would wipeout humanity from earth, start building huge huge data center and simulate a whole... Wait a minute...
Small word about OpenGL, as it seems confusing for many peoples:
OpenGL is a spec written by Kronos group. There is no such thing as OpenGL library, or OpenGL source code. You cannot "download" OpenGL. OpenGL is really just a buch of .txt files explaining how functions should be named and what they should do. This spec define an API.
Then, this API can be implemented by anyone, by writing code and putting it in a library.
GPU drivers implement this API. That means that Nvidia, AMD and Intel have their own implementation.
To have access to this API from your program, you have to "getProcAdress" all function you want to use from GPU driver's DLL. As this is quite painfull, libs exist, like glew, that do it for you. These libs are really just a long list of getProcAdress for all entry points.
That's also why you cannot "static link" with OpenGL. As function can only be retrieved at runtime.
Another interesting things is MESA. It's a CPU implementation of OpenGL spec. So MESA is a lib, with source code and so on. You can download it, link against it, etc... This is very useful when you want to do 3D without GPU (yes, this happen, especially in medical domain).
Because I installed it when it was pre-alpha version. Ended up to an ugly window with just an addresse bar. I though "this shit will never worked, yet another utopistic project, too bad..."
Then, came back 2 years later, gave him a 2nd chance and "OMG ! They fucking did it !". So I keep it as a redemption for not having believed in the project at first.
You doesn't seems to be the kind of person with whom can have constructive argument. I gave you facts and number. Sorry I cannot take my time machine and go back 200 years back telling Great Britain to stop burning coal.
Also, my company has as objective to becomes neutral by 2030 and 20% carbon negative by 2050.
Locally, we have decreased our electricity consumption by 20% since 2022 and put in place mobility actions to push people taking bike or bus. Nearly half of employees use soft transport (public, bikes, onewheel, etc...)
We cannot rewrite the past or snap finger to change habits of 8billions peoples.
We will be juge on our current actions and futur results. As of today, we are trying something which we hope is going to the right direction. But its always easier to criticize and not doing anything.
First, because these forests has to stay in place, or used as building material but cannot be burn to for heating. So we still have to plant extra forest for heating.
Second, we still have all the Co2 we have put in atmosphere since a century. So the goal is not to be equilibrium, but to be net negative.
There is not a unique solution "Plant Trees and go electric" to global warming. There are lots of solutions, with pros and cons. CCS is just a small part of the equation. Use renewable energy, use storage (litthium batteries, Hydrogen, ...), Nuclear, change habit to consume less, plant trees and develop carbon capture solution.
The problem won't be solved with a unique solution, but by finding the good balance between all the possibilities. And those who know it won't work are please to let those who doesn't know try.
Geological reservoirs are thousands metter depth and several dozen of km wide. Pressure is
a few MPa, and temperature hundreds of °C. Condition are so extrem that filling them with gaz barely change anything. Especially if they were already filled with gaz dozen years ago.
Furthemore, they are not big vacum like most people imagine. It's more like giant spongy rock, like sand. It's not a baloon you inflate or deflate.
CCS facilities are not in competition with forest. It's a complementatry solution. If you manage to capture carbon next to poluting factories, you don't spread Co2 on the atmosphere, waiting it to be captured by a forest the other side of the globe. And they can be powered by solar panels.
Agree, carbon capture process is quite efficient now. I'm working on (pretty big) company doing Carbon Capture and Sequestration. The idea is to use empty oil&gaz reservoir to inject back carbon where it comes from. So there are several advantage:
The land is already messed up by former drilling platerform. No need to shave another forest to create a facility
No waste to handle, as the captured carbon is injected in the underground. We also study the possibility to inject other kind of waste, like domestic ones.
Simplified process as we can keep Co2 in gaz state to inject back in former natural gaz reservoir. Not even needed to extract carbon to solodify it.
Yes, trees are much more efficient and eco-friendly, but sometime we cannot just plant billions of trees. Whereas a CCS facility is relatively small compared to a whole forest.
I'm really pissed of this "I'm sad 'cause I'm poor. So if I had money I would be happy."
(Poverty imply sadness) does not imply (wealth imply hapiness). That's basic formal logic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition The Contraposition is (not sadness imply not poverty). So, If you are happy, you have money.
Expressed differently, if all the poor are sad, we can state that a happy person is not poor. But we cannot state anything about a rich person being happy or not.