Technically they’re “downcyclable”. The materials can be separated and used for other purposes, but they’re not “cycled” back into being another tetrapak.

It’s also a very energy intensive procedure so even if it’s possible to use some of the materials again, it’s by no means as environmentally friendly as products that can be recycled for their purpose. Take for instance glass bottles and aluminium cans, they can both be recycled into glass bottles and aluminium cans.

Some places also reuse glass bottles by cleaning them. This also costs energy, but not as much as grinding it down and heating it to produce new glass.

Aluminium cans are probably the best single use beverage container as of now.

The best one is not to get one in the first place. Reduce, reuse, recycle, reclaim.

Tetrapak is in the “reclaim”.

Carrying a personal reusable water bottle is a good idea, because it reduces the production of singular use containers.

It’s bicycle with a helping engine, but it’s not electric.

The thing that looks like a battery is the fuel tank. The engine is the metal attachment left and below of the center of the back wheel.

Random fact: The first motorized vehicle to drive across the USA was a bicycle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_A._Wyman

So, what happens if you order a bomb at the McD?

Those mistakes would be easily solved by something that doesn’t even need to think. Just add a filter of acceptable orders, or hire a low wage human who does not give a shit about the customers special orders.

In general, AI really needs to set some boundaries. “No” is a perfectly good answer, but it doesn’t ever do that, does it?

I think any aliens advanced enough to visit Earth would probably understand it.

Whether it’s horror movies or extreme sports, it is some kind of play, which is about creating a safe or controlled environment to explore things that either isn’t really happening (horror movies) or things that haven’t been tried before (extreme sports).

A lot of extreme sports are actually relatively safe because it’s done by individuals in highly controlled environments. Statistically it’s a lot more dangerous to participate in other sports or everyday activities where there’s a larger risk from other participants or things that are unpredictable. Things like horse riding, traffic and trampolines are more dangerous because they’re more unpredictable. The consequences might be worse if it fails thoughm, making it “extreme”.

Travelling through space to explore inhabited planets absolutely requires the same kind of desire and process of safely testing out things that are potentially dangerous.

That’s pretty much the point. We could’ve had vehicles that could drive over rough ground, but they opted to make flat roads and rubber tires, both of which are causing issues environmentally and congestion.

My whole thought experiment is : If you were to settle a brand new world, would you repeat the concept of roads and rubber tires?

Early EVs and horse carriers had large wheels because the roads and paths where dirt or cobblestone.

My point is that, if they had simply said “okay, that is the condition that we need to accept, adapt to and solve” like we do today with tarmac roads taking for granted, they could have developed a vehicle to do that. It would probably have larger wheels and soft suspension, but the only reason cars are shaped as they are today is because they didn’t solve it back then.

What happened instead was that low torque combustible engines were subsidized and rolled out on the condition that tarmac roads were also provided by the state. This was largely due to bitumen being a biproduct from petrol production. The oil industry pushed for both combustible engines and tarmac because they could supply both.

My previous rant is basically just entertaining the idea of what we’d do today if posed with a similar challenge. Roads are absolutely taken for granted and tmwe will never be able to undo that. It might be relevant if we ever inhabit another planet, but the last I read was that road planning had already begun on the moon…

Just need to develop suspension instead of developing paving.

Yeah tires is probably one of the worst inventions ever. It spreads microplastics everywhere. The main purpose is traction.

Tarmac is bad too. Roads as a whole is a pretty bad solution.

It’s almost as if railways had everything right from the start.

The following is me ranting about a rather obscure theoretical idea, so please bear with me, or quit while you can.

Now, if we were to reinvent the entirety of transportation. Let’s imagine we rewind time to just before cars, but keep our current knowledge, are cars really the way to solve transportation? No. Just no. Imagine landing on a pristine foreign planet and the first thing we do is to pollute everything just to pave a road for transportation that also requires more pollution to use said road. It is just not right. The idea of "road’ comes from the predecessor of cars, carriages, and people sort of took that idea for granted and developed from there. I don’t even blame them.

Let’s go back to the imaginary planet, and rethink it without the idea of “road’”. How would we solve transportation? By redesigning the wheel. In order to make a wheel that could drive over off-road, we basically need something a lot more solid and durable than rubber. And we’d need engines that could easily and swiftly apply the correct force to the drivetrain to circumvent the uneven terrain. With current technology that would be solvable.

Guess what the first cars were? Electric and with huge solid wheels. The paved road and rubber tires are the result of a push towards combustible engines made by the oil industry. The 1800s electric car manufacturers were actually on the right path, they just didn’t have the technology or money to do it.

Yes, sure it can. Mashed/blended spaghetti bolognese or lasagna are available as baby food.

Baby food products are basically just ordinary food blended and packed in smaller convenient portions. Simply look at the package to see what it contains.

Cat and dog foods are completely different kinds of food, which is often made from animal biproducts and not suitable for human consumption.

Good. ICE cars should have high tariffs. They’re all subsidized too

Besides proving that postage was paid, stamps also used to function as legal tender, at least where I live. I remember posting stamps as payments of small amounts instead of writing a tiny cheque or requesting bank details.That’s not the case any more. Even the post office can reject to buy back of stamps now, so they don’t function that way anymore.

Contemporary cars are mass-produced and have impractically many special and unrepairable parts. They’re a real patchwork of different technologies that will become obsolete when switching to other fuel sources.

Also stamps and cash. Intricate prints meant to dissuade counterfeiting, which will be replaced by digital technology.

Your quote is not from the OP article, or maybe it’s been changed.

I’m not sure what you’re up to but if you are using software to do it, perhaps a multiband compressor would be more suitable than an EQ.

No. It doesn’t work like that at all.

You might as well turn up the volume knob to gain back the lost amplitude. That will maintain the mix that you just set to your liking. Just set it as you like it.

However, if you do boost the frequencies a lot so the signal starts clipping, then it begins to make sense to adjust the faders in relation to each other until it stops clipping and still have the “shape” that you like, and then use the volume knob afterwards again.

For instance, if you like a lot of bass and turn up the bass, then it’ll likely clip. It might be better to turn everything else but the bass down and then boost the volume.

This is mostly an issue for the bass area. Our hearing is (logarithmically) less sensitive to low frequencies, so in order to turn up the bass we have to make it much louder than if we want to turn up the treble. The bass easily takes up the entire “headroom” available in the signal, resulting in clipping before it is amplified. The rule of thumb is that cutting is better than boosting.

Anyway, unless you’re compensating for a bad speaker or similar, it’s generally best to leave the EQ alone. Professionally produced music is already mastered to utilise the entire frequency spectrum in a balanced way so that it can be safely turned up without having certain frequencies dominate the output or to turn it down without losing the details.

Using an EQ post production is somewhat like salting a gourmet meal. Chances are that it’s making it worse unless you know why you’re doing it.

Obviously you can listen to music however you want, but please pay attention to what happens when you turn up the volume. It’s likely that you’ll want to use less EQ as the volume goes up.

Getting paid for ownership.

The article linked at he bottom has a picture and more info on the wooden satellites.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/japanese-scientists-wooden-satellite

You might be able to tune the radio to an AM frequency that picks up the engine interference.

These are in addition to the existing 10% car tariff.

Also keep in mind that there are large car registration taxes and VAT in Europe. While this applies to all cars imported or not, it does increase the difference in net price.