of course not

Because hydrogen isn’t trying to replace the source of energy, it is trying to replace the storage of it

yes, but the point is renewables>battery storage is a more direct and efficient storage system than renewables>hydrogen which then has to be contained, shipped, and distributed for every refill/charge. Batteries you make once and recharge thousands of times which you can do with distribution through the grid from your local power utility (or even right at home if you have solar).

at present batteries are not nearly good enough for the EV only transportation boom, but hydrogen works and only really needs to deal with the volatility issue

it’s not just volatility that’s an issue. Even setting that aside, Hydrogen is difficult to contain because it’s such a small molecule, and it weakens/corrodes metals. These are not trivial challenges at all.

the other thing you can’t do with hydrogen is energy recovery via braking, so you’d have to build cars with a battery or some other kind of hybrid system for fuel cost efficiency.

It’s true that batteries present their own challenges but we are making much more progress in battery tech than we are with hydrogen.

Dont most people know that?

most people do not know that in my experience.

thought the promise is that you could establish a hydrogen infrastructure and it would get greener over time - similar to EV’s which get greener over time as power generation includes more renewables.

why should we use renewables to produce hydrogen (not to mention develop an entirely new hydrogen infrastructure) when we could just use that renewable energy as it is? That’s just adding extra steps and inefficiency for very little benefit, if any.

One of the most satisfying parts of owning an EV is thinking about all that industry that no longer needs to exist.

agreed.

play stupid games win stupid prizes.

also most hydrogen is a byproduct of fossil fuels. very little hydrogen is made with green energy.

edit: 95% of hydrogen is produced directly from fossil fuels. Truly "green"hydrogen is less than 1%.

https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/hydrogen

what reason do they give for removing the feature?

I would have recommended consulting traditional sources.

jfc you people are so eager to shit on anything even remotely positive of AI.

Firstly, the entire point of this comment chain is that if “consulting traditional sources” was the only option, I wouldn’t have done anything. My back yard would still be a barren mulch pit. AI lowered the effort-barrier of entry, which really helps me as someone with ADHD and severe motivation deficit.

Secondly, what makes you think i didn’t? Just because I didn’t explicitly say so? yes, i know not to take an LLM’s word as gospel. i verified everything and bought the plants from a local nursery that only sells native plants. There was one suggestion out of 8 or so that was not native (which I caught before even going shopping). Even with that overhead of verifying information, it still eliminated a lot of busywork searching and collating.

sad that people knee jerk downvote you, but i agree. i think there is definitely a productive use case for AI if it helps you get started learning new things.

It helped me a ton this summer learn gardening basics and pick out local plants which are now feeding local pollinators. That is something i never had the motivation to tackle from scratch even though i knew i should.

I think a major criteria should be gamifying of content with likes, follows, etc. as the person above was getting at.

Theres a list of things that they ask to figure out if you have ADHD. If you have like 8 out of thirteen things you have ADHD.

yeah I’ve done that, I’m just wary of self-reporting assessments. I’m not confident that I’m assessing myself objectively.

There’s also hyper-focus, the ability to focus on just one thing for extended periods.

yeah I’m just having trouble figuring out if my well-focused periods are just “normal people” focus or actual hyperfocus.

If it’s a paid service your psychiatrist uses and your doctor trusts the results, then I would too.

“trust but verify”. i have no reason to specifically distrust my doctor, but i also know there are bad doctors out there, and psychiatry seems to be a particularly fuzzy science.

Why do you doubt the results if you’re trying to get help? Isn’t that the point of reaching out to a doctor in the first place?

well yes i want help, but i want the right help. No assessment is going to be 100% accurate. mental healthcare is not cheap and takes a long time to troubleshoot. medication has side effects. If i don’t actually have ADHD, every monthly session and hundreds of dollars spent on it is less i’m spending on whatever the actual issue is.

edit:

coincidentally found this video tonight. Russell Barkley says there are no ADHD diagnostic tests. Assessments can be helpful with research and studies of large groups, but they are not helpful in a clinical setting for individuals.

But regardless, everyone is different. I wouldn’t put too much in stock with one quote.

it was just one example I could remember offhand, but yeah that makes sense.

But also, I have no idea what a creyos ADHD assessment is either. If it’s just some free online test I wouldn’t necessarily put too much in stock with its results either…

it’s a paid service my psychiatrist uses. long series of cognitive tasks, no idea how accurate it is though.

I’m not just looking to apply a label to myself or look for excuses, I’m trying to identify a root cause and “understand my brain” as you put it. I do want guidance and new approaches to life, but that does not mean I have ADHD. If I don’t, I’ll be wasting time and money testing ADHD-oriented meds, therapy, etc. instead of whatever the actual issue is.