Reminder that DNA evidence is nowhere near as flawless of an instrument as portrayed by crime shows and the news media. Like all other forensics, it's a matter of interpretation and likelihoods, far less reliable than you might think. Here's a good overview of the many issues with it:
https://daily.jstor.org/forensic-dna-evidence-can-lead-wrongful-convictions/
There is nothing clean about nuclear power:
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315
How long does it take before it gets good? This might upset fans like you, but I'm having a hard time getting into it, to the point that I have my doubts if it's worth it. Before you're asking what I'm doing here, this was randomly in my feed and I only noticed that this was a Stargate community after having written most of my comment.
I caught some of it when it aired for the first time and was thoroughly unimpressed of it compared to TNG (I'm not a Trekkie either, more of a casual viewer of Star Trek). Then I tried watching it again a few years ago. It left such a terrible impression on me that I had forgotten all about even making the attempt until I tried again recently and noticed after a few absolutely awful episodes that they seemed awfully familiar. The previous attempt had left such a bad impression that I had essentially purged all memories of it. I didn't even know this was possible.
I want to like it (I actually liked the first episode a lot), but the writing is just so bad and everything, apart from some of the CG (which holds up quite well) and the solid acting feels cheap and poorly thought out. The mystery and intrigue gets overshadowed by sexism, jingoism, characters that can be summed up on a postage stamp and plots and scenes that are contrived and clumsy. I'm sure they'll flesh the characters out more over time, but do they ever solve how the female token character is being treated? Does it ever stop feeling cheap and schlocky?
He didn't have the resources and determination of the Chinese state behind him.
Just sitting outside, exposed to the elements, changing temperatures and humidity? What a brilliant idea.
There's a reason we aren't doing this.
You need suitable locations. That's the main limitation.
The point is that this type of energy storage is very cheap relative to the amount of power it can store.
If it's so simple, why did a highly developed nation find no solution for it over the course of decades? There are no perfect containers that don't leak, there is no perfect storage location that doesn't have a chance of contaminating groundwater. The real world doesn't work like that.
The high cost also means that it'll take away funds that could have otherwise been used on much cheaper renewables. Nuclear energy is a terrible deal.
Yup. A significant amount of the fissile material in Europe used to come out of Russia. France, who is commonly held up as the arch-defender of nuclear power, is now fighting basically colonial wars in Africa for this stuff. There's a finite amount of it, it's costly to extract, costly to refine, costly to transport. Even before you've generated a single kilowatt of power, you've already done a lot of damage to the environment just for the fuel.
It's an inherent issue with deep learning. Awareness of this among people who are regularly using these tools is very low, which is troubling.
https://umdearborn.edu/news/ais-mysterious-black-box-problem-explained