Thanks! I get that and short version: it’s not a realistic genetic model, it’s a trait-inheritance system with evolutionary flavor.
Each organism just has a set of numeric traits (size, armor, spikes, tentacles, aggression, reproduction rate, etc). There are no genes, codons, chromosomes, or genetic sequences. When organisms reproduce, offspring traits are basically noisy, heritable copies of the parents, with per-trait heritability and mutation.
Structural traits (like size) are strongly inherited, behavioral traits are more plastic. Big size, armor, high reproduction, etc all come with metabolic and mobility tradeoffs and mutation rates can go up under stress.
So it’s a phenotype-level evolutionary model, not a molecular genetics simulator. The goal is to get interesting evolutionary dynamics and tradeoffs, not to simulate real DNA or genetic architectures.
You can zoom into (and capture a snapshot of) each organism by clicking it and see a lot of details on traits.
I used to work for the Air Resources Board of California, and while there is a warm-up period, modern ice cars are so profoundly cleaner than cars even from the early 2000s. It’s pretty stunning.
Regardless, there’s nothing cleaner than no combustion, and I can’t wait until EV‘s have replaced them all
Every single survey that I'm aware has concluded that by any measure EVs are more environmentally friendly than ICEs. The only caveat is that the "startup" footprint of an EV is higher (because batteries), but the ongoing cost is far lower, even with polluting electricity sources like coal, because it's still way more efficient to burn coal in a proper power plant than it is to ship around gasoline and burn it badly in ICEs. The breakeven point (depending on your assumptions and driving habits) is a couple of years in, and after that EVs wipe the floor with ICEs.
Even where they are charged using coal? Please provide the research on that. Note that I'll be checking who funded and who performed the peer review, so please choose carefully before posting.
Based on that I no longer believe you are an expert of any chemistry or energy. Or you are really bad at making jokes maybe?
Regardless, electricity for your EV comes from somewhere, right? It's powered by a coal power plant in much of the US, with electrical energy transduced (effective loss at every transduction point) through countless parts and miles of electrical equipment before it reaches your charger.
Are you about to tell me that coal is cleaner than gasoline? It's not remotely comparable. Coal is insanely dirty. This is common knowledge.
Every metric you asked about applies to coal and much worse and therefore to your EV in vast swathes of America.
The EV in such places is doubly destructive. You've burned coal AND mined lithium and shipped it, plus you're carrying a heavier load, and your batteries are short lived, and toxic.
>Oh no, am i bad at making jokes?, Or is your argument a joke?
No my argument was serious. You've sliced your data gratuitously. You're also making rude jokes, and I think there are HN rules about that somewhere. But, I'll forgive you.
You looked up the share of energy for the US as if every vehicle owner spends equal time driving in every city. That's dishonest. A vehicle owner typically drives in one city nearly all the time. If that city is coal powered as we can see, many are, that owner should not operate an EV. But policy relying on blanket data like yours would incentivize their doing so. That's bad for everyone, except the policymaker and his buddies selling EV related products.
The primary point, however, is that EVs move the pollutants up the supply chain. The car itself is non-emission, but the power plant and battery cycle are not! And the alternative power sources aren't really clean either. Nuclear, for example, requires mining, enrichment, etc. (all carbon heavy) and then we still need to deal with disposal which doesn't even exist! We're sweeping that under the rug when we call that clean energy. We don't have a solution for waste so we just exclude it from our impact calculations? Ridiculous.
Now add a toxic battery on top of all of that, and all of the mining and waste disposal associated with it. You've moved your pollutants to China, added shipping lanes, and dumped more oil and now lithium into the ocean. This may be worse overall and it's for sure worse for owners of cars in coal powered locations.
But you do get to say that the EV in a vacuum is zero emissions (at the location of inertial output only). Nice work!
Your argument zoomed out to blanket statement the US where it suits you, and then zoomed in to the car itself to exclude where your pollutants are. It's truly very dishonest. That argument is damaging to the public interest and to the environment, and insults the sciences.
Did you really not understand? I suspect you did, and in the context of your previous jokes, I think you're trying to annoy me. It'd be nice if that's not true.
Is it?
I suppose if we want to look at the US as a country (pretending it's all one city with one grid), then we will continue to encourage the 20% (roughly by your numbers) that drive gasoline in the coal power areas to downgrade to coal powered EVs.
I don't think that's good. I think you're careless and destructive for supporting that.
Anyway, you're not really acknowledging very real problems with your assertions and that's not going to make for coherent discussion. There's nothing scientific about that, so I suspect you might not be interested in science.
Lost my interest. Cheers.
For others reading, I'm happy to continue scientific discussion on this topic, especially if you disagree.
No warmup here. I've stated that much of the research favoring "clean" energy makes extremely generous assumptions about the validity of the data and allows for overly confident assertions mainly used for marketing. We know a lot less about the environment than you think, and even with what we do know, we can say for sure that when you include supply, manufacture, transduction, etc. you really can't call any method for power generation "clean" with current tech. It's all empty promises of new potential tech to be seen if we milk the tax payer. Just people with degrees in the field making money on selling pipe dreams to the public, and helping officials pump taxes into their investments. That's "clean" energy in a paragraph. It doesn't exist.
Research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and related studies shows glyphosate negatively impacts bees by disrupting their gut microbiota, weakening immune responses, impairing learning/memory, affecting foraging behavior, and increasing mortality, with effects seen from both pure chemical and commercial formulations at environmentally relevant levels, impacting both adult bees and larval development.
1. Dropping levels of elemental lead in folks born 20 years earlier, so lower impulsivity.
2. “The internet”, leading to higher levels of homogenization of culture
In app purchases from (crappy) games is top revenue source in App Store. Anecdotally, I’d be shocked if the majority of that wasn’t from kids using their parents’ phones.
I wouldn’t expect that either given the little that I know about the rigorous software requirements for aviation.
But I assume that neither of us has anywhere near enough expertise to “refuse” to believe that any computer/software system could be used in dangerously absurd ways even accidentally.
