6 ms·
Futuristic "fuel" doesn't necessarily mean hydrocarbons, although I doubt something else would be widespread in in just one decade.
by Terr_ 5d ago
Futuristic "fuel" doesn't necessarily mean hydrocarbons, although I doubt something else would be widespread in in just one decade.
- mbgerring 4d agoI know this is off topic, but I feel compelled to point this out — the transition away from fossil fuels is happening extremely fast, in punctuated bursts, in broad daylight, and you still get comments like this. And meanwhile, many putatively smart people are really worried about an imminent robot apocalypse. If I had the money to do it, I would be willing to make a large wager that neither gas-powered lawnmowers, nor lawns, nor robots capable of autonomously stealing power from your neighbor, will be common in 2035.
- Terr_ 4d ago> and you still get comments like this I said "fuel", not "batteries", so why are you giving a complaint that seems aimed at people who downplay next-ten-years electrification? If you didn't misread my comment, then explain which "non-hydrocarbon fuel" you believe could become common in cars (and lawnmowers) within just ten years. (Hell, let's make that easier, just "non-petrochemical.")
- mbgerring 4d ago> although I doubt something else would be widespread in in just one decade.
- Terr_ 4d agoYou're doubling-down on your mistake, by pretending the first clause of the sentence--which bounds the category--didn't exist. _______ Me: "Futuristic [thermonuclear power] doesn't necessarily mean [fission], although I doubt something else would be widespread in in just one decade." You: "OMG, what about wind and solar!? Lots of things have already been replacing fission! So out of touch." Me: "I said types of thermonuclear power that aren't fission. Not power in general." You: "Yes you did if I just... delete the entire first half of your sentence..."