Syncthing

Self-hosted. Open source. Your data stays on your own devices. Creates a shared folder on your laptop and your phone. Move a file into that folder on your laptop, and syncthing pushes it to your phone.

Well, we’re pissing off the right people.

It’s a little clunky, but KryptEY is an on screen keyboard that can encode/decode messages. The encoded messages can be transmitted over any service.

Luigi was a lone wolf.

He’s not celebrated because he’s a lone wolf. He’s celebrated (by both the left and the right) because he struck the oligarchy. Strip out that cancer, and the underlying system is fairly manageable and responsive.

Are you forgetting that it goes “a well-ordered militia…”

“Regulated”, not “ordered”, but I understand your point.

The Left and the Right both celebrate Luigi. Our differences are not nearly as significant as our commonalities.

Constitutionally, the militia is the whole body of the people, and We The People are most definitely armed.

You are a member of an armed militia.

cost != price.

The costs involved with that touchscreen are in the tens of dollars, and much lower than the myriad physical hardware it replaces. The costs of producing the car are considerably lower. The price manufacturers charge for that vehicle are considerably higher.

Try to replace a defective touchscreen: the charge for the proprietary replacement screen is more than a flagship phone, but provides fewer capabilities than a budget tablet.

A $200 tablet and $50 holder is much more capable than the built-in touch screen. The built in touch screen is adding more $2500 to the price of the vehicle.

Phone holders are wonderful in a car. Get rid of the built-in touch screens entirely.

Here’s a good alternative.

That’s exactly why he is invading Venezuela.

The courts have been holding him back from deploying national guard - let alone active-duty troops - domestically. He’s got ICE, but he wants more. He wants to declare martial law. He wants troops in the cities. Active-duty, Federal troops, not weekend warriors. The courts say he can’t do that without the Alien Enemies act, and they say he can’t invoke that act without a war.

So we have a war.

a flight of helicopters which could be MH60 Sea Hawk

In the videos I saw, the helicopters were twin-rotor design. Some variant of the CH-47 Chinook.

Blackberry insisted on a 3-row thumboard on the face of the device. I want a 5-row slider, like Samsung’s Relay.

This particular manner of death is one in a trillion. The odds that these three were going to die in a car together was quite a bit closer to parity.

At this point, you just seem obscenely delusional to me.

This does not surprise me. I mean, you suggested spraying carbon-rich “fertilizer” within the biosphere as a valid approach toward reducing atmospheric carbon.

Your basic understanding of the concept of “sequestration” is irreparably flawed.

Biomass is something different… Do it right and you can just use it as fertilizer. Just grow a bunch of algae and spray it over dry land… It’s that easy. It’ll feed the soil, which locks up a lot of carbon back into the food chain. Stack wood in a desert, who cares. There’s so many better ways to do this

You fail to comprehend the concept or need for “sequestering”. What you are talking about perpetuates the atmospheric carbon cycle. It does not decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide. The mass biodegrades, re-releasing the carbon. “Sequestration” locks that carbon out of the biosphere. You are not talking about sequestration.

You keep jumping back and forth between biofuel and biomass.

Biomass is the raw substance. Biofuel is processed biomass. Processing it into a solid fuel is relatively trivial by little more than compressing it under relatively low pressure. Processing into liquid fuels is far more complicated and energy intensive than CO2 capture after combustion. For sequestration purposes, biomass would not be processed into liquid fuel. Liquid biofuels would only be used for transportation purposes.

And CO2 is a fucking gas

Not at the depths and pressures we’re talking about.

But it does not stay that way! We live in Earth, and most cavities aren’t able to stay pressurized without leaking

I think you need to revisit that misconception. The cavities we’re talking about certainly are.

You can bury solid biofuel,

Not in the volumes necessary for atmospheric carbon capture, no, we cannot. Furthermore, solid biofuels are not stable, certainly not as stable as CO2.

Sequestering a fluid is far simpler, safer, and more stable than attempting the same with a solid.

Your arguments seem to assume that what you’re putting back into the ground is a fluid of some sort, either oil or gas.

Biomass is not typically handled as a fluid. Biomass is generally a solid. Picture “wood mulch”, or “corn stalks”. While the specific materials will vary, the most common format for these biofuels is as a pelletized commodity: The source material is physically pressed into small lumps and handled like coal, not oil or gas.

Conveying liquified CO2 through a pipe and into a reservoir is a trivial exercise. Conveying pelletized biomass into a suitable storage facility in quantities necessary to have a practical effect is not feasible.

What methods are you using to convert pelletized biomass into liquid hydrocarbons, suitable for pumping back into the ground? How is that method superior to pumping compressed CO2 instead?

My old PC locks up every 4 to 48 hours. It would make a terrible NAS.

Hydrocsrbon chains are the most efficient way to store carbo

Volumetric efficiency is not the relevant metric. Energy efficiency is much more important. The process you describe requires far greater energy input to complete the sequestration.

Furthermore, the physical properties are a problem. Biomass appropriate to this process is conveyed as a flammable, pelletized solid; CO2 is an inert fluid. One of these can be pumped via pipeline into empty subterranean reservoirs; the other cannot.

You’re right about biofuel… Except that biofuel is already refined biomass. The water is already removed, usually to become as close to pure hydrocarbons as possible.

Hydrocarbons.

Chains of hydrogen and carbon.

Your comment demonstrates you’re not fully understanding the chemistry of the combustion. If you remove the “water” I am talking about, you wouldn’t have a hydrocarbon. You would have only carbon.

The “water” I am talking about is the “hydro” part of the “hydrocarbon”. That “hydro” does not become CO2 when it burns. That “hydro” becomes H2O.

When burning lighter hydrocarbons, the majority of the exhaust in the stack is actually water vapor rather than CO2. Putting that hydrogen into the ground, unburnt, provides no additional benefit over putting just the CO2 into the ground. It merely fills up the reservoir faster, and requires even more energy for the same amount of carbon sequestration. Burning that biomass, it is (theoretically) possible for the energy recovered (after powering sequestration operations) to be a net positive.

Sequestering the unburned biofuel without recovering that energy, the operation must be a net negative.