Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)RU
Posts
0
Comments
157
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Unfortunately, that does seem to be the easiest solution.

    Though how much that imposes on your privacy depends on how they implement it There is no saving privacy. If it was me, I would keep everything the same, except have the checksum tied to an account and it can be checked and updated remotely.

    This way, most of your transport usage informed would not be stored. In theory they could still log when the checksum is checked or changed by an official machine, leading to a vague idea of when you travel.

    The points of attack would then be:

    • Somehow spoofing an official machine to talk with the server and modify the stored checksum. Very difficult if done properly.
    • Cloning someone's card and using their account credits. Relatively easy to do. To prevent this they would have to implement usage tracking so the users can check for fraudulent activity. And there goes privacy.
  • A bit different from the question but

    Outer Wilds.

    I've spent a lot of time in it and have 100% it, so it's hard to find a reason get back in, but even just booting to the title screen just completely transports me.

    Why? Outer Wilds was just an incredible experience, and the OST is astounding and the music completely soaked up the experience and can bring it all back just by listening.

  • If you had read even the first sentence of the article, you might've learned that just maybe they have a reason to not use land.

    Not enough land.

    Not every place is like central Africa or Ohio. Basically all coastal regions near the equator (which are the only places they are recommending this) are densely populated. To get the amount of solar panels they suggest, you would have to go far inland (if there is any inland) and have many more much smaller solar plants, and that's more maintenance than single giant solar field, though as you've said, I'm sure on the sea comes with it's own maintenance problems.

    The article also talks about waves, wind and other environmental affects, and shows all the places where the "defences" against the environment wouldn't have to be strong or expensive.

    They most definitely don't suggest that this be used everywhere. The main example they talked about is Indonesia. Extremely densely populated with little suitable land for solar plants.

    TLDR: In most places this is stupid... but they never suggested that. There are certain places where it is viable and possibly the only option for large solar farms.

  • I was wondering the same thing. Just considering algae, it absorbs a large portion of the world's CO2. But the ocean is massive and a relatively tiny covered patch wouldn't dent it much.

    Add the fact that the solar panels would negate some of the need to burn fossil fuels, I think the outcome is more than net positive.

    As far as any negative impact on wildlife and the biosphere, I'm sure it's negative, but I don't know much about it.