Based in Princeton since it launched in 2022, PolyGone Systems developed “a floating filter” that can capture most of the invisible tons of microplastics that stream into the world’s waterways every year. […] Liu outlines how PolyGone’s filter works: Made of thousands of silicone fibers, it traps small particles due to their hydrophobic properties, meaning the microplastics stick to the bristly brush-like filter. […] Banks goes on to say that the filter allows wastewater systems to recover the collected plastics, separating them from the bristles. Since most plastic is either buoyant or lighter than water, they are usually found on the surface or in the first 30 centimeters of the water column, where PolyGone’s filter operates.

So a brush-like filter floating on the water, with the microplastics sticking to the silicon fibers penetrating the surface?

If the worker has a “choice” between a familiar application with guaranteed compatibility, there’s a slim chance a switch is going to take place. It requires standardizing document exchange on open format types (instead of continued use of Microsoft’s proprietary ones) and familiarization to the substituting software suite. This doesn’t mean these applications and formats should be dropped entirely (at least not short-term), but that FOSS applications and open standards should be defaulted to. Otherwise this should be regarded as gesture politics.

If you stream footage of a robot, wearing a wife-beater, dookie-rope and a mustache: grabbing a girl’s ass and making humping motions afterwards; I think it’s safe to say what the intentions were… This has to be dumbest shit I’ve read in a while haha.

When solar energy is low, the energy is likely to come from a plant powered using fossil fuels. So instead of tanking LPG at a station, it’s converted to electricity and transported to a charger. Internal combustion engines can also run on alternative fuels, but the practice isn’t that common (think of running a diesel engine on vegetable oil); or may be further optimized to run extremely lean (requiring less visits to a gas station: if the fuel doesn’t degrade through volatility of octane-increasing additives).

I’m not really trying to make the argument that ICE-powered vehicles are superior to EVs (or the other way around for that matter), but rather that modern vehicles (regardless of energy source) are fundamentally anti-consumer (dealership lock-in, expensive replacement assemblies, on-board surveillance-tech monitoring and sharing user-data, etc.), compared to legacy vehicles (which just happen to be ICE-powered).

If it was the other way around, ICE-power vehicles would catch the heat instead; if used to force a change in fleet, arguably for economic reasons and increased control (to manufacturers, and by extension legislators and insurance companies). And this isn’t just limited to vehicles, but also insulation of homes, how energy is metered therein (“smart” meters: allowing for disproportionality in rates), or replacement appliances utilizing that energy (supposedly in more energy-efficient ways: if working in optimal conditions).

Same goes for you it seems, since you wrote yet another comment…

I’m not really arguing Russia isn’t facilitating bot-traffic (nor here on Lemmy, regardless of instance), but I simply don’t agree with the framing of most articles on it. The claims are barely substantiated, or conflated with Cloudflare’s general traffic drop (including that of crawlers). Well that, and somewhat of a collation of not immediately related frustrations I have on the overall subject at the end… :)

You’ve already spent time writing two comments. Could’ve also spent that writing something with at least some substance to it. If I’m supposed to value you your time and effort, how about you value mine too?

@wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz already made that “argument”, if you can call it that. How about meaningfully interacting, instead of disregarding based on something irrelevant?

Unexpected, really? The “energy transition” is mostly economically motivated: in that it (indirectly) forces consumers to invest into “new” technologies (while abandoning functional appliances, substituted for newly produced ones, and infrastructure accommodating for it; carbon emissions of which rarely taken into account); and effectively spending their savings for them (if not forced to enter into a loan agreement).

The disruptions in fossil fuel supply from Russia and the Middle East (which are at least in part self-inflicted), just further “incentivize” those that are primarily financially motivated (don’t “care for the planet”). Another primary interest, if not obsession, is governments’ and insurance companies’ push for a V2X (vehicle to everything) enabled fleet: constantly monitoring and communicating with surrounding vehicles and infrastructure (directly, or through mobile carriers).

And your argument? You’re only disregarding me for using an instance with a reasonable policy, and for what you consider Russian bot traffic, which is exactly the point I’m trying to make; whether or not you consider that of a critical thinker.

And your argument as to why?

If even the US’ Cold War anti-communist propaganda station ‘Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’ states the drop is likely due to Yandex’s crawlers, what does that tell you about the credibility of Zelenskyy (having an obvious conflict of interest) and all Western outlets running with it, by extension? The Russian government might not even need bot farms at this stage, because the West keeps undermining their own credibility: with single-sided, unsubstantiated malinformation of half-truths at best. It’s so obvious to me they’re trying to pass off any critical thinker as being a Russian troll, and trying to escalate the proxy-war by attributing “hybrid-war” sabotages to the “aggressor” (that is conveniently in a weakened state because of it). Yes, Russia undeniably invaded Ukraine, but wouldn’t the US do the same to Mexico if it turned communist, following all of South-America?

So all this is trying to solve, while introducing a whole lot of other complexities, is the delay caused by trains stopping at intermediary stations? Where individual carriages can part of the main track, allowing others to carry on? And what about railroad crossings? Are most supposed to be dissolved, while centralizing all to fewer that separate rail from passage? Because with all these individual carriages on track, crossings will be occupied a lot more frequently. There’s simply no way to safeguard all of these crossings, and if an event occurs, it disrupts large sections of the network.