That really depends on what you will run all the remaining ships. Current battery technology isn't suitable for large container ships, sails work for smaller ships. There are ideas to use ammonia as fuel for large ships, and it won't be made were it is consumed, countries like Namibia are planning on becoming large suppliers of ammonia. If this comes true you'll get 40% of all ships just carrying ammonia around the world.
Mærsk is testing wind and electrical power on their fleet. Won't make the ships 100% self-sufficient, but will hopefully lower the impact of the vessels.
Flettner rotors can cause fuel reductions of 10-20% [source]. Definitely not nothing, but you still need some way to fuel the ship, those rotors don't turn on their own and are AFAIK not used as main propulsion.
They work. However they are a lot slower - by enough that no shipping company can compete using them. I'm not clear on if they scale to the size of modern ships either.
They 100% work - just as well as they did in 1700. The slow speed means nobody will use them exclusively. I'm not sure if they need extra labor as well (assuming modern controls) but that is another potential reason nobody would use them. They couD though.
I think you missed the point. The idea is that almost half of shipping is getting around fossil fuels, so we can slash shipping emissions by reducing fossil fuel use.
At the outset, let me say renewables are the end goal and the best outcome.
That said there are a number of problems with this approach. This chart doesn't define what 40% it's talking about. Which is actually impossible because metrics in shipping are considered different for different types of ships and trade. I assume this map/post/thing about deadweight tons (DWT), which is the metric you judge liquid and sold bulk goods. For containers it's TEU (twenty foot equivalent units), for offshore vessels it is often but not always bollard pull, for cruise ships its passenger to crew ratio, etc.
Also the original poster may be referring to total tonnage by metric X (dwt, displacement, raw number of ships) or some other unknown metric)
But let's assume this is a good faith argument. In terms of bulk commodities, it is probably true that nearly half the fleet by deadweight is shipping coal, crude, refined products, LNG/LPG. But that is an effect of the size of ships one uses to transport such commodities - they are always very big ships even though there are far more many smaller ships in terms of raw numbers.
And in any case the problem is demand. If people want cheap shit from China and cheap oil from the Gulf, someone is going to ship it. Renewables are the way forward, but if you want to transport a lot of stuff or a lot of people that you cannot transport by rail, planes and ships are the answer. No other source has the energy density of petroleum to ship stuff.
Somewhat ironically, per ton-mile (i.e., how much stuff you can carry per mile), shipping is by FAR the most efficient way in terms of energy consumed. The pollution from ships is horrible, even changing certain weather patterns in the N Pacific, but as long as we have the demand, it will exist.
They did not mean the ships become green energy ship, they meant the ships would no longet be sailing at all because we don't need to ship the coal etc.
Also, brrak the larger ships down into several sailing ships. Infinite small sailing ships would be more green than one large fuel burning ship.
And infinite small sailing ships could all simulatenously dock at our fractal infinitely long shorelines, all unloading their infinitely small cargo at the same instant, simultanously flooding the earth with infinite amounts of oil and zero amounts of oil that we wouldn't notice at all. 😀
i mean, i don't deny that making ports bigger and able to handle more ships (with more infrastructure and people working the ports) would help alleviate some of the problems we're seeing, but it's the whole building more lanes on the freeway problem. build a bigger port and it'll fill up with just as bad traffic
Several countries already refuse to let nuclear ships into their ports. Also considering the state of some ships (look at Russia's shadow fleet for example) I'm not so sure it's a good idea to have them be powered by nuclear reactors.
Put mathematically, when we cut fossil fuel usage by 10%, it will result in 4% fewer cargo ships. When we reduce fossil fuel usage by 50%, it will result in a 20% reduction in cargo ships
funnily enough renewable energy is probably gonna be the biggest driver of the economy in the next 10 years or so, considering that a lot of new infrastructure has to be built for it and they will generate a lot of power to drive further manufacturing.
Or we could get rid of windmills and underfund solar incentives and research, occupy oil producing nations and try to drive this number higher? It's 2026 people, let's redefine what progress means! 🦅💪🎇
So overseas shipping rates drop and some of the companies convert their ships to give joy-rides in seas (because cheaper sea travel), while some seamen get to explore avenues like deep sea exploration (which seems to be a really underdeveloped field) and development.
Well, the average deck hand can stay working at the normal ships that are shipping other stuff. The above average ones can become a deck hand for the newer vehicles for deep sea operations.
Both are probably already paid low enough that corporate can easily pay them while reducing shipping rates at the same time.
But of course, if the extra exploration rate can be afforded, then so can their salaries. The only thing that matters is whether there will be someone wanting to do so.
They can install solar panels or wire or something and not have to be away from their family for months at a time. Also the vast majority of seamen shipping oil are coerced captive workers from impoverished places with confiscated passports and no rights. Employed isn’t really the right word to use.
That means fuel will continue to get more expensive as other markets switch to renewable energy sources. That in turn will reduce the number of ships which will make the fuel harder to find, which will reduce the number of products using that fuel, which will eventually result in total elimination of that market.
The big costs comes from building the infrastructure for fossil fuels. So as soon as demand falls, you have a huge part of the bill has been paid already. So you get low fossil fuel prices. You need to keep in mind that most large oil producers are state owned. Therefore those states will try to shut down other suppliers production.
You can see that already with sanctions against Russia and Iran to keep US oil producers going strong.
markets don't work that way. if you reduce demand (i.e. fewer people consume fossil fuels), and supply stays constant, that means that prices go down, which makes fossil fuels cheaper until people start using them again. eventually it balances out at an equilibrium state. supply and demand
Yes, thats assumed. However we are taking into account that machinery rusts away quickly. If you stop one refinery for example, that's not a smooth change, its an abrupt step. If we stay steady below the usual high, then trying to come back will be expensive. For that reason we'll see the price increase slowly...you need the fuel, so its a seller's market, they need to get paid as if their load was double in case they need to double. At some point it might drop a bit until it becomes a luxury item.
Here's an example where the price is going up became the supply keeps dropping and the demand keeps increasing regardless of the supply situation:
The same would happen to ice cars. People still want to use them if they have them, but the market keeps shrinking.
I bet the 12% are direct use (pipe tail), not all the shit that goes into building and maintaining this orchestrated dance, i.e. at lvl 1 the roads, tires, cars, fuel transport etc. and what does into maintaining and operation the infra to keep lvl 1 gking etc. But accounting (oil, co2...) for end products is surprisingly difficult.
If the post is even accurate, that likely doesn't factor in secondary needs. Roads, tires, shampoo, soap, lubricants, hydrogen, solvents, medical plastics. So many things made from oil and oil byproducts.
All of these industries have to be looking into alternatives in parallel, if they are even aware.
Yeah, didn't want to hit every note. Medical specifically requires a higher tolerance and quality level that makes it more challenging to be replaced with alternatives like bioplastics. For most items, I'd be fine buying them in glass or cans again.
I didn't say it has to be... It's the reality. In the context of bioplastics the challenge is that the 17.5% of people in high-income countries are currently the only ones with the infrastructure and the disposable income to easily adopt expensive non-petroleum products and produce them as well. As for the other 82.5%, petroleum-based plastics remain the standard because they are significantly cheaper to produce and easier to manage in traditional waste streams. So, unless these replacement comes in cheap and easily producible forms we are far from replacing anything in the near future.
The vast majority of oil and gas consumption is just burning the shit in a pile
The oil companies want you to think about plastics to make you think all the oil we drill is important, but it's actually only a tiny fraction. It's all propaganda.
There is indeed propaganda going on, but there is also a reality that many supply chains need conversion, and that money needs to come from somewhere. Not saying it is right, nor that it is unsolvable, just a reality. Most often, the smaller businesses are destroyed by expensive switches to new methods. Which is all we need, more megacorps owning everything.
In a world with functioning governments, processes, grants, tax breaks, and such could be set up to help companies switch.
Never said unsolvable by any means, but they need to be solved yesterday. Blows the mind too, for all those capitalism-minded people, they have all this untapped "wealth" they could be getting into on the ground floor instead of clinging to oil.
Whether or not they are economically feasible with current tech is a different question.
Given that oil-based fuel still exists, there's no reason for anybody to try to actually create a feasible, sustainable, scalable process to do such a thing.
All of these industries have to be looking into alternatives in parallel, if they are even aware.
Why?
I mean, I think it would be good, but why would they have to be looking into alternatives? Why couldn't we phase out fossil fuels for burning purposes, and then whenever that's done start thinking about phasing them out for use in other products?
Plastics are a waste product of converting oil to useful fuels. That's why they're so cheap and used in the most unbelievably wasteful ways. They'll remain inextricably linked. Fuel is expensive, plastics are incredibly cheap. If we ban the use of fossil fuels but still rely on oil based plastics, plastics will become very expensive and we'll still be creating the fuel. We'll just have a growing supply of worthless energy sitting around and decaying in storage.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea as I'm not an expert by any means, but to keep plastics for essential uses like in medicine will likely require a heavily subsidized plastic industry at least. But hey we already subsidize the fossil fuel industry directly and by externalizing the planet destroying effects of their use...
Also, it's unlikely that countries would be manufacturing their own renewable infrastructure. You would still need ships to haul solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries from China to destination ports.
if i remember correctly, 97% of fossil fuels are actually used to generate energy from it, and only around 3% are used as material, i.e. turned into plastic and such.
Renewables... And also reduction. People need to grow up and realize that driving a vanity tank for half a mile to get a gallon of milk is fundamentally unsustainable. Humanity and the planet can no longer afford to support this level of gross privilege, regardless of the "fuel" used.
Also, the top energy reserves by company in the world are 5 Chinese silicon producers. 17 m² of high-efficiency solar panels (approx. 100-200 kg total) can produce the same amount of electricity in a year as one barrel of oil (135kg), and they will continue producing for 25+ years.
In these times, having solar is immunity from geopolitical extortion that applies to those dependent on feeding dinosaurs into their energy furnaces.
In the US, we use a lot of prime farmland to grow corn that we turn into ethanol - 30,000,000 acres. Thirty million acres!
That ethanol is combined with gas (making the gas less efficient, by the way) and powers our cars in the US.
If you look at the number of miles the ethanol powers in the US, and calculate how many acres of solar we'd need to power electric cars to go that number of miles, we'd need to convert less than a quarter of a million of those acres to solar. So let's round up from 214,000 acres to the 250,000 because... inefficiencies, or whatever.
So we could gain 29,750,000 acres of land to grow more food or whatever and stop growing corn to turn into ethanol just to burn it in our cars.
For that matter, if we wanted to use that ethanol land (JUST the land we're using for ethanol) to power ALL cars in the US, switching everyone over to electric, it would only take about two million acres. Sure, 2,000,000 acres is a lot, but that would still be freeing up TWENTY EIGHT MILLION ACRES of land we're using JUST to grow corn we turn into ethanol.
It does ignore anything like the chaos of forcing everyone to buy a new electric car, setting that infrastructure up - I'm not saying this would be easy, but it is stunning how much land we could stop abusing to grow corn to burn in our cars.
I was just posting nonsense in response to the commenter who didn't read what they were responding to. But yeah, I did mean it in the sense that it is highly artificially selected grass. Most being all, the remainder being none
Bypassing the question of whether sugars and oils are edible (?), field corn is perfectly edible for humans. Field corn isn't sweet corn, and doesn't taste good as a vegetable. But we can eat it the same way most people throughout history have eaten corn - as a staple crop, as a grain like wheat, as corn flour, cornmeal, grits, parched corn, hominy, maza, etc, etc. We just choose not to.
And calling opposition to ethanol "oil and gas propaganda" is ridiculous. Like the comment you responded to point it out, ethanol is sold mixed with gasoline. The industries are synergistic, not competitive. They have a common interest in promoting internal combustion engine vehicles and opposing EVs.
Mandating solar PV in all building codes nationwide, and incentivizing onshoring of all of the processes that go into manufacturing solar PV panels (including using trade protectionism practices such as tariffs AFTER WE ALREADY HAVE PROCESSING AND MANUFACTURING CAPABILITIES IN THE USA) will do wonders for helping average people transition away from fossil fuel Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) cars to EVs.
Many people who cry foul about EVs and renewables adding too much load to a grid that is too old and just can't handle it forget the main counter to disarm their arguments: colocating generation with utilization.
Having solar PV (and other renewable) generation closest to where that power wants to be used is the best for the grid infrastructure (maybe not the grid investors) because it reduces residential/commercial load while maintaining the needs of the original giga users of the grid: Industry.
There are solutions to SO many of today's problems. We just have politicians that are bought and sold by billionaires and their corporations who won't do the public's bidding. Voting progressive politicians in, and preferably ones who vocally claim they're Democratic Socialist or similar, is the strongest way we push back against Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Tech, and all the other mega industries.
Theres a lot of misunderstanding going on here about both corn and solar power.
Corn is not something that requires ideal or fertile real estate. People imagine corn being grown in the stereotypical midwestern river-adjacent and particularly fertile type of places, like Iowa or Ohio or whatever. The reality is that modern corn production requires a shitload of artificial nitrogen fertilization, so the actual fertility of the land is virtually unimportant. Believe it or not, Texas is actually one of the most productive places for corn farming, and in particularly hot and arid areas where you wouldnt be farming much else. More like typical ranching land, not prime farming land.
Now with solar power, at the current levels of efficiency (and unlike corn), having a cloudy day is a major killer. UV intensity at high elevation can be virtually nothing when it gets a little cloudy. Whereas on a sunny say it would be extremely high. So you need ideally somewhere that is as high altitude as possible, but where it is also sunny almost all the time. There are not a lot of places that meet that description, and even the few places that do are largely very expensive to acquire land in because people want to build houses and hotels and golf courses and whatever else in (or adjacent to) the mountains. Take Pueblo, CO, for example. It’s one of the solar hubs of the US. But its difficult to expand from there because you can either go east, down in elevation, and increase the number of cloudy days. Or you can try to go west and everything becomes exponentially more expensive the closer you get to the Rockies.
More importantly though, corn and solar production necessitate two completely different environments. No one is growing corn in Pueblo, and you wont find many solar fields in places where corn is grown effectively. Because a lot of the time people grow corn where it rains often, therefore those places have many more cloudy days in a year. Realistically you cant just take corn fields and turn them into solar fields
If this is true then solar dominance would be very efficient for our society in your's and op's description because in this scenario, corn will still always be grown.. however, it would be marginalized to its regions that can only grow corn as you described.
So we could gain 29,750,000 acres of land to grow more food or whatever and stop growing corn to turn into ethanol just to burn it in our cars.
What if there is another potato famine, (added: another potato destroying mold)? That corn creates food security because it can always be used as food while the ethanol is replaced with petrol.
Corn grown for ethanol is not edible by humans. Also, do you really think growing only 29,750,000 acres of corn instead of 30,000,000 acres is a meaningful difference? Because it's not.
You suggest to grown none of those 30 million that are used for ethanol. That would be 30 million acres less out of 90 million that are used for corn. That's a major chamge.
Corn grown for ethanol would not help in a food shortage, so for the idea of a food shortage, it is.......... not helpful.
We have plenty of land not being used right now that could be used to grow food.
But we don't have a shortage of food. We have food being wasted and thrown away. We have plenty of excess food. This is like being worried about your driveway taking up valuable lawn space. It's...... not.
You can also scour the ground for pennies just in case you run out of money, too. It'll technically bring in more money than you had before.
You could also keep a stash of aluminum cans to turn in for money as well in case you run out of money.
But the amounts of help these things would do is so incredibly minimal that there are much better uses of your time.
Yes. Technically. Growing less than one percent of the land we grow for ethanol corn would mean that extra less than one percent of corn we really don't want to eat JUST IN CASE we needed that last tiny bit.
We could also easily open far more than that in farmland and grow other crops that are more edible first.
But yes, technically, we could grow food we neither want nor need.
We do not fucking need that land for food. There is no shortage of food. Nobody is fucking starving due to a lack of food. There is a lack of distribution, yes. But not a fucking lack of food.
Furthermore, converting 250k acres of that corn that we are NOT FUCKING EATING BECAUSE IT IS BEING USED FOR ETHANOL into solar that powers cars instead would ALLOW US TO GAIN ALMOST 30,000,000 ACRES OF LAND TO GROW FOOD.
Food that we do not fucking need in the first place.
You know the Irish wouldn't have starved so bad if the Brits didn't insist they export all food that wasn't potatoes. Let's not use bad policies as an example for why we can't have good policies.
there's already a movement to change over to ammonia for fueling shipping. I don't have a good feel for the benefits and drawbacks but it is out there.
Founded by four MIT alumni, Amogy is offering ammonia-cracking and ammonia-to-power systems for industries like maritime shipping, power generation, manufacturing, and more.
Yes, as far as I'm able to understand it, ammonia is quite promising for certain industrial purposes (and to run the tankers themselves). Engineer the right engine, and it could potentially run on ammonia while acting as a cracker. Temp store excess hydrogen, and use that for the second part of your journey (or sell it for onshore purposes).
Offshore wind and onshore solar excess can be used to produce hydrogen, not coal.
It takes extra steps and introduces inefficiencies, but it is able to store larger amounts of energy than batteries, and can be used in certain industrial processes which do not run on wires and electrons.
In a succesfully electrified world, it is likely that some ammonia and hydrogen is shipped around the world for such use cases. The main alternative is to keep using fossils.
But if you want to do anything with it other than heat something up, you need to build a contraption. And, we've only recently become good at building those contraptions.
Yes, but you can’t resell it for a profit elsewhere easily. You want us to switch to sky energy, we need a way to make the output portable so someone can make money on it. I really hate capitalism and hope this is the fall at a global level. Though if anyone was watching, China has been making the right moves towards solar and transport. If they stop oppressing their people i’ll move all my soon to be worthless USD to YUAN.
The issue is, that renewable energy requires a lot of rare earth metals. This bring a whole bunch of other issues. Politically and ethically. "In a perfect world it would be... " there is no perfect world. Humans never change.
We lived for millions of years without jobs. We'd be fine. In fact, We'd replace those jobs with jobs in renewable energy sectors.
Its insane to me that people argue that we should continue accelerating climate change which will kill far more people and cost more money than what we would make addressing and mitigation it.
But that would get in the way of your dumbass argument wouldn't it?
EDIT: This comment is based on outdated information (see the below thread). A growing number of wind turbines are switching from electromagnets to permanent magnets, the latter of which use rare earth minerals. You could still make wind turbines with electromagnets, but that does likely give countries with rare earth minerals a competitive advantage.
Apprently my information is outdated. For a long time, wind turbines used electromagnets (the fact check is from 2016), but it looks like they are starting to use permanent magnets now (which require rare earths). They still don’t need them, and I think a lot of the ones using permanent magnets are from countries which have rare earths, but I will update my initial comment since I don’t want to move the goalposts.
In any case, there is a commenter above that mentioned solar, which according to my link does not need rare earth minerals.
I think the world bank report is a good read, regardless.
I'm not sure actually. Sailboats might use less energy while moving, but they probably move slower so you need more of them for the same transport volume per year. So you need more ships, which need more steel to be produced. So you have higher emissions during production.
Look, you’re not thinking about the shareholders. I NEED YOU to think about the shareholders! How will they ever make their billions? You selfish bastard!
"We need the fossil fuels to get more fossil fuels to move the fossil fuels just to take the fossil-fuel thing to the fossil fuel store to get more fossil fuels!" -people that sell fossil fuels
We don't, we decompose. Fossil fuels are basically plants that died and were subsumed millions of years before bacteria and fungi evolved to decompose them.That doesn't happen anymore.
This would be incredibly energy inefficient first of all, because a lit of energy gets lost when using induction and that rises really quickly with the distance from the source.
Second of all, that would be really expensive to build.
Third of all, this doesn't solve the real problem of individualized travel. Cars are really inefficient, becuase: 1. Their infrastructure wastes a lot of space. Most people travel alone in their cars, which means, you have all this sourounding machinery you need to transport in addition, which is huge. Cars get into traffic jams, so the city decides to widen the rode. This moves the whole city further appart, which means people need the car more often, which means there are more traffic jams. 2. They are hugely energy inefficient, because (as said before), you need to move the whole car around just to transport one person 3. They are the most dangerous mode of travel and most often endanger bike drivers or pedestrians. 4. They are loud and stink
You could solve most of these problems with proper public transport. These "futuristic" ideas, like inductive roads or Musks Hyperloop are just a way for big companies to direct funding and attention away from public transport.
OK, well there's a lot of engineers and scientists that you'll have to find and explain how wrong they are. I wasn't inventing induction roadways in my head, they're a real thing and showing a lot of success for use cases like the trucking industry and use on highways where cars travel at speed most of the time.
If we could power vehicles on negativity and dismissiveness of electrifying fossil fuel infrastructure until everyone got the exact solution they wanted, we could all drive to the moon and back.
Tucking in behind a heavy truck as it crawls along the highway could soon be quite an attractive option for EV drivers. Early results from a wireless charging pilot show the technology capable of transferring "more than 300 kW of instantaneous power.
The thing is, we already have the solution though. It's public transport. Railways can also be used to transport cargo. For longer routes you can still use ships.
Your solution is the unrealistic one. Because we would have to invest an insane amount of money into that infrastructure. We could invest a fraction if that into public transport and we would be so much better off.
I don't care how many scientists agree with you. Just think critically for like 10 seconds about this. How would this really improve anything over public transport?
Also there are a lot if scientists agreeing with me, so...
I think you're assuming everyone lives in an urban setting or a developed Western European country where trains are already present. That is not the case for a significant number of people, like it or not. it is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and certainly not a bridge to ease people off of fossil fuels.
My parents live 2 hours from a large city, and 30 miles outside of a small town, the last 2 miles of which are a dirt road. What, exactly, form of public transport should I take from the airport to their house? A series of busses and then walk 2 miles? How would THEY get to the store? How should they buy and get food to their small farm? On a bus?
Since you're awake, you're likely in the same time zone as I am, or close enough. Are there not isolated villages and communities where you live where 100 or fewer people aren't worth a bus going by every 45 minutes, just in case?
Ya, they dont give a shit about the environment. Hence why we produce all our goods there, as we theoretically self flagellate ourselves for climate change.
China is actually one of the very few countries meeting its commitments so far. They're even a bit ahead of schedule: renewable and nuclear power plants, fleet electrification (cars and trucks, plus advanced railways), planting large forests, etc.
Granted that won't be sufficient, they should do more and faster, and they now see coming issues with the degradation of their soils and their water resources. But during that same time period, western countries rolled back environment policies and came back on their promises, going further and further away from adverting a catastrophe.
When I see a response like this I am reminded of "Americans wanting to be right at the cost of doing what is good." At a certain point you should ask what is the intention behind your words?
Okay, but why start the framing as a problem with China? Last I checked their carbon emissions have flatlined, if we were to shift that manufacturing home it would likely be more carbon intensive due to our own inefficiencies. We could import green infrastructure but we're a failing petro-state so here we are....
I read recently that they found bacteria in the ocean that's actually metabolizing some (PET) plastics, so that's kind of interesting. sciencedaily.com/releases/2025…
We're happy to announce a long-term partnership with Motorola. We're collaborating on future devices meeting our privacy and security standards with official GrapheneOS support.
@skywalker2k17 @alexia They're close but don't have hardware memory tagging usable in production and we aren't willing to lose it. It will be the next generation of those devices supporting GrapheneOS.
@skywalker2k17 @alexia I am ready for an upgrade.. Wish a repairable phone was an option. Due to the fact the only thing wrong with my phone is the charge port on my pixel 7.
@skywalker2k17 @alexia yeah. I have looked at Fairphones. Their hardware (according to the grapheneos team) is not secure. So there is no grapheneos support.
@pmurphs @skywalker2k17 @alexia there are more issues beyond just the hardware. The fairphone team has not been able to ship timely security patches to their devices which are needed for GraphineOS development, they have in the pass just accidentally leaked their device signing keys meaning you could never be sure of your security on any device signed with those keys pre or post leak, and many other issues. I really hope they can get it together some day because I hate compromising
@alexia I see, thank you for letting us know the reason why. It's sad to see manufacturers intentionally disable MTE when it can prevent a lot of attacks.
now you can decide whether you're more worried about US backdoors or Chinese backdoors Honestly at this point the latter is probably more trustworthy
@lunareclipse @a53bdb US-based companies have thousands of published backdoors already. I don't recall many Chinese products which were found to have been shipped with backdoors. 🤷
@publicvoit @lunareclipse @a53bdb Kind of depends on whether you count "cheap electronics that don't really need to call home or shouldn't but still do".
There's a whole lot of them and they routinely get compromised and added to botnets later in their lifecycle.
@lispi314 There's a *big* difference between "sloppy security that eventually gets pwned" and "deliberately backdoored by a nation-state for the purpose of domestic mass surveillance" @GrapheneOS @publicvoit @a53bdb @lunareclipse
@publicvoit @JamesDBartlett3 @lispi314 @a53bdb @lunareclipse People have different opinions. We're going to work with Motorola to meet all of our security requirements and improve security beyond that. They're helping us with providing GrapheneOS support for their devices rather than us having to do the work ourselves. They may end up contributing more to GrapheneOS beyond that too. In the future, we can work with other OEMs. It's not an exclusive partnership but we have limited resources.
@a53bdb To be fair, all phones are made there so that risk always exists anyway.
As long as GrapheneOS doesn't slack on their requirements including (but not limited to) being able to access low level stuff it shouldn't be much worse if you flash the phone yourself. And those kind of requirements are why Pixels where the only ones supported to begin with...
@NewDay14 @a53bdb Many off the important parts are still made in China before it's shipped to other places the phones are made. There is no going around that. Beside, Vietnam is not much different when it comes to this...
@Cambion @a53bdb Samsung is the best company when it comes to independence. Samsung produces their displays, batteries, cameras, and processors in South Korea mainly. If the goal is to minimize dependency on China and the US while still obtaining high-quality products, Samsung is the clear leader in that field. However, they are likely so large that they wouldn't be interested in a partnership.
@NewDay14 @Cambion @a53bdb Motorola contacted us about working together and we enthusiastically pursued it. We would do the same if Samsung wanted to work with us. Our Motorola partnership is explicitly a non-exclusive contract. There would need to be another company wanting to work with us and capable of meeting our requirements for there to be another partnership though.
@da_habakuk @debacle Motorola Signature (2026) already has a 7 year update commitment but doesn't quite meet our requirements yet. The future devices with GrapheneOS support will be even better than the improvements they already made for their 2026 flagships.
As I understand the article, this will be aimed at corporate customers. I am hoping they will also sell to individuals and that the non-corporate customers will not have the analytics feature or it can be turned off. Motorola's problem has always been OS support. If GrapheneOS is handling support, it is a win for everyone.
@BoloMKXXVIII Devices with official GrapheneOS support will be available to individuals. Look at the Motorola Signature (2026) which was close to meeting our requirements but not quite there yet. Motorola Razr Fold (2026) is another example. It has to be 2027 because not everything was ready yet and a lot of work is needed on support for GrapheneOS too.
@BoloMKXXVIII The analytics feature is for their mobile device management system and their own operating system, not GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS is a separate thing from their operating system. They're both adding official support for GrapheneOS and using a small subset of GrapheneOS features to improve their own operating system. They could add support to GrapheneOS to their MDM but that wouldn't involve us adding any invasive integration for it in GrapheneOS. We wouldn't do something like that.
@katzenberger It will start with flagship devices but their flagships tend to be priced cheaper than flagship Pixels. More devices will be supported over time. It should be expected it will start with only flagships though. Look at the Motorola Signature (2026) and Motorola Razr Fold (2026) for an idea of the kind of future devices it would start out supporting.
Please try to get a mid-range phone also supported.
Pixel a series at least in Germany is basically thrown after people having a phone included in their mobile network contract, so you can get a current a series half a year after release for 300 € in Germany. Considering the remaining 6.5 years of support by Google, this is an insanely good price for a long lasting and secure phone.
@lumi GrapheneOS is based on the Android Open Source Project which doesn't have Google apps and doesn't use their regular services. It only uses Google as a provider for very basic standard services which we replaced in GrapheneOS.
The purpose of GrapheneOS isn't specifically avoiding Google apps and services but rather providing a high level of privacy and security in general. Using Pixels is not in any way counter to our goals. We want official OEM support, lower level hardening, etc. though.
@lumi @alexia GrapheneOS and the Android Open Source Project are Linux distributions. We strongly disagree with the premise that glibc, systemd and GNOME are preferable to the much more private and secure AOSP software stack. Moving to the desktop software stack would be a huge regression for nearly everything we care about and focus on improving. It's already possible to run desktop Linux apps in GrapheneOS including GUI apps via the hardware virtualization support and there's a desktop mode.
Where's the application sandboxing, memory safe languages, modern exploit protections, deep integration of powerful hardware-based security features and everything else we focus on in GrapheneOS?
Aside from any of that, the concept that the Android Open Source Project isn't a Linux distribution is wrong. Linux isn't the userspace software that's largely portable to other operating systems. There was a Debian variant using the FreeBSD kernel which is clearly not Linux.
Fork with huge change-set - hard to review. With drivers written to "get to market fast", not quality. With other closed drivers in userspace to avoid open sourcing.
Naaaah, this ain't Linux I'm running on my laptop.
I won't argue — security features of AOSP may be superior. But what runs beneath these features isn't!
No, Android isn't a fork of Linux. Android works fine with mainline, stable and longterm Linux kernels from kernel.org. It doesn't have any required downstream patch set.
> Fork with huge change-set - hard to review.
It's not a fork and has no required changes to the kernel.
> With drivers written to "get to market fast", not quality.
> With other closed drivers in userspace to avoid open sourcing.
That's not part of Android and is in no way required to use it. Desktop Linux distributions ported to the same hardware nearly entirely relying on the same drivers regardless.
> I won't argue
You're just making objectively inaccurate claims to promote massively rolling back privacy and security by moving to legacy desktop software. Replacing vendor drivers has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
> No, Android isn't a fork of Linux. Android works fine with mainline, stable and longterm Linux kernels from kernel.org. It doesn't have any required downstream patch set.
Show me one vendor of phone shipping clean kernel. One.
Hardware vendor drivers are part of Linux I use, are you implying Android != Linux? 😉
where's your vetted package repository and actually end-user verifiable system booting and bootstrapping (aosp taking 3 days to build on a fairly high end personal hardware makes it fail at that, hard, not to mention the cursed build system), and open community based development model (which google is dead set on removing from aosp)
@lumi @alexia firstly, don’t see this as an attack on GrapheneOS (it’s great what you are doing), but I believe the aim of Linux-based projects like #postmarketOS is to achieve (more) independence from the manufacuters in terms of software/driver support. Sure, ultimately this may require open-source hardware, but it’s nice to dream. I find these projects valuable, even if they aren’t quite there yet. (And yes, I know you could also just incorporate these open source drivers once they are available).
@lumi @alexia The current default software stack for desktop Linux is kind of terrible and the lack of coherent threat model or proper ecosystem of sandboxed applications are major issues with desktop right now. What I am still questioning is whether it is even possible to make a proper competitor to ChromeOS (if we ignore the hardware insecurity of basically all PCs).
So example software choices: systemd -> dinit or s6 sudo -> s6-sudo (setuidless) glibc -> muslc glibc malloc or jemalloc -> hardened_malloc, malloc-ng, or mimalloc-secure (which supports more CPU architectures) bubblewrap (sandbox used by Flatpak) -> #syd (it's written in Rust, has many important exploit protections, and can even be the user login: gitlab.exherbo.org/sydbox/sydb…) GNOME or KDE -> XFCE (when their new Rust Wayland native WM is finished) gnutils -> *BSD or uutils
The issue of course with most of these alternatives is that they are separate projects and therefore dont have the same goals, methods, or threat models. Also most of these projects are written in C which does not help at all. Also there is of course the lack of a proper chain of trust from the hardware to loading the kernel and userspace.
It may just not be reasonably possible to provide a alternative without millions of dollars of funding and a decade of development. It would be nice for there to be an alternative to AOSP/ChromeOS or even MacOS for desktop computing which actually takes security seriously. It doesnt even need to have be completely on par when it comes to security, just do better than current Linux distros (not a very high bar).
What are your thoughts on what to do in case the day comes that Google kills AOSP?
Lots of these are giving up even more security features.
> hardened_malloc, malloc-ng, or mimalloc-secure
These aren't the same classes of allocators at all. Neither the musl malloc or mimalloc is a hardened allocator. mimalloc is performance focused and musl's is focused on low memory usage.
> What are your thoughts on what to do in case the day comes that Google kills AOSP?
What about when IBM decides to kill systemd, GCC and GNOME?
You'll have to explain why/how IBM owns GCC. Fairly sure it's an actual FSF project.
GNOME?
RIP lol
Other than the accessibility stuff most of it I don't care much about, and with the ensloppification going on & Red Hat apparently insisting on it, it might well die anyway.
What are your thoughts on what to do in case the day comes that Google kills AOSP?
This however has real chances of happening and already has a largely closed development process with no community.
Which means it doesn't even need a poison pill contributor agreement, all the necessary rights are probably already in Google's possession for malicious license changes.
Not to mention that the main useful part of Android, the drivers & their documentation, aren't even included anyway. Everything else could be replaced by something better with some work.
@lispi314 @King_of_Ooo @alexia @lumi AOSP has a far larger development community than desktop Linux. There are a huge number of both corporate and community AOSP-based projects. There's a massive community of people working on all kinds of projects related to it. Desktop Linux is assembled out of a bunch of barely maintained or developed projects with one of two developers each. It has nearly non-existent systemic work on almost anything aside from systemd gobbling up components into itself.
@lispi314 @King_of_Ooo @alexia @lumi systemd won not because it's good but because it actually exists as a somewhat coherent basis for an OS providing the features which are wanted. It didn't have to be a sensible or good implementation of almost anything. It's far from only an init system and the overall desktop and server ecosystems are increasing based around it. All the non-tiny desktop Linux stack ports to mobile are heavily using systemd. They're bringing systemd to mobile, not Linux.
@King_of_Ooo @alexia @lumi You know, if you're just going to avoid the question you could simply not answer that post, like you did with my mobile modem isolation question.
The overwhelming majority of the BSD tooling that isn't systemd could be ported with a modest effort if systemd died. Note that I linked daemon supervisors earlier, because session managers and init systems are a lot easier to come by.
edit: Ah, my bad, I confused the subthread. You did ignore it and replied to the prior post.
> You know, if you're just going to avoid the question you could simply not answer that post, like you did with my mobile modem isolation question.
Don't know what you're talking about. You're one of hundreds of people.
> The overwhelming majority of the BSD tooling
It has little to do with the desktop software stack. That increasingly only has an incomplete port over to BSD with a growing amount of hacks. It would just roll it back even further.
Currently things are fine with Android but Goigle keep moving toward making Android more locked from software and apps. Is not this going to be a problem to what we have now? or there is a workaround?
@lumi @alexia I'm excited for GrapheneOS success for people it's for, but I fundamentally don't like the Android (AOSP, not even talking about Google) model of how basically anything works. Non-Android mobile OS options are what I want. Ones where I have full root, can run a small set of trusted apps from my distro just like I would on a laptop, and where everything else runs in an extremely restricted sandbox. I don't want those relationships inverted where a gigantic pile of Java code I could never understand or build or modify is the root of authority and I just have to trust that it's going to let me do what I want.
@dalias @lumi @alexia GrapheneOS has to get huge adoption and major partnerships before we can start on our much longer term goals of moving away from using a Linux-based OS as the core operating system to a more secure platform. We want to be running the current application layer part of the OS solely via virtualization eventually. We don't expect to ever make the Linux kernel and overall model it supports on top secure enough for our goals. We'll still need the AOSP-based OS for apps.
Awesome news. Going to a shop, buy a Motorola with GOS pre-installed is a dream. Although the installation process is super smooth and not an issue, but for some it is. I wonder if you have the man power to support pixel (as stated below) and Motorola hw. I also have no clue what it means to the limitations google tries to implement for developers in autumn….
As a Motorola phone owner, this story of collaboration between the mobile phone brand and GrapheneOS is very good news indeed. How soon can I ad GrapheneOS to my current phone, or will I be able to afford a new one?
Thank YOU, GrapheneOS, for taking the time to respond to my query. Now I have even more reasons to like you guys and to be interested in your work and products.
such great news! Motorola was the OEM I had been secretly hoping you guys would partnership with. From Motorola's press release it seemed as though they may be adopting some aspects of GrapheneOS into their own skin of Android. Am I understanding that right?
finally no more 23W max charging speed and pixel errors (literally lol). Hoped for Nothing/CMF because of their awesome techy Designs and they are europe based but i guess Motorola was nice in the past atleast.
Oh and dont forget that overheating issues when charging or doing stuff, especially in summer. Also if you have a protective case, stickers and privacy screen protector it heats up even more and charging speed drops to 3W or even less. Pixel 8 is not great except the camera
According to publications in Israeli media from December 2023, the Motorola smartphone devices have been used by the Israeli military in fighting inside the Gaza Strip.
i'm shopping for my next phone & looking for an OS OS - Open Source Operating System. The article doesn't mention when the GrapheneOS Motorola phones come out When will they be on the market?
i have the incredible LG ThinQ Dual Screen (technically tri-screen) which is hands down the coolest phone EVER, but LG stopped making phones
Great news! My only gripe is that afaik Motorola's phones are pretty big but that seems to be the trend for the entire smartphone market these days. Still rocking my 6.1 inch pixel 8a with grapheneos!
Although i congratulate you and Motorola/Lenovo for the initiative, i'm a bit concerned about what will happen to GOS because let's be honest: Motorola is a company, not a charity. What's their ROI on that? Just reputation? Also considering that they announced data analytics and their own "security" tools in one breath. Will it only count for business phones or will the phones be shipped with preinstalled software in the future? I hope GOS will also run independently of Lenovo tools.
@tuxicoman Well, let's see how that turns out. I'd be a potential buyer for sure. I'd welcome the security but if it becomes a similar data sink like Google, just with a different endpoint, then nothing's gained. It then just would be the same sh*t, different flies. Let's wait until the first joint release comes out. I'm very hopeful and cautiously enthusiastic. GOS also has a reputation to uphold and i'm hopeful that they wouldn't just sell their soul because of corporate money.
@Brokar @tuxicoman It's going to be the same GrapheneOS supporting additional devices with official support and collaboration from the OEM. They're going to benefit through selling many more devices and we get more high quality devices meeting our security requirements which we can properly support. It should also be a lot easier for us to support than Pixels because they're going to be helping us a lot. Most of the work still needs to be done, but it's a serious partnership already.
I've been so many months waiting for this announcement! Still need a little bit patience, but so much looking forward to have a complete degoogled phone. Funny thing is, my very first mobile phone was a Motorola Thanks, Graphene for the great work
Google's announced destruction of android except as completely controlled by google has shocked us, and reduced independent app makers, secure phone makers to writing begging letters to billionaires.
Lenovo, laptop king who also sells those laptops cheaper without Windows, using linux, is PARTNERING to sell a LINUX PHONE!
Lenovo sells phones under the Motorola brand name. (Lenovo brand phones sound more marketable)
This FANTASTIC news, express interest, build this. Buy one soon
@43256bc0859462cf14fa7de594a48babdf189b91abe27f88d824abf69b2343c9 Their past and current generation (2026) devices won't be supported. It will be the next generation launching in 2027. You can look at the current Motorola Signature, Motorola razr fold and Motorola razr ultra for a basic idea of what the initially supported devices will resemble. Those 3 devices are close to meeting our requirements but weren't quite there yet and more time is needed. Perhaps if we started 6 months earlier.
@superblox There are essentially no European manufacturers. Their phones are white labelled Chinese ODM devices where they have little input into it. That stops them from meeting our requirements in practice unless the ODM happens to meet all of them on their own since the OEMs selling those devices don't get much input into the low-level development. They're stuck using the platforms which are available with surface level changes such as choosing a display and the enclosure design.
Will the bootloader be unlockable and relockable with user keys like the Pixels or will they just come with Graphene preinstalled with no way to do that?
@luana It will fully support using other operating systems including users making their own builds of GrapheneOS. It's part of our hardware requirements. We'll likely be able to make hardened builds of firmware and drivers which can be released in an official way for easy builds without needing to extract anything from the GrapheneOS or Motorola OS factory images.
@ferricoxide @luana No, it's a much different feature than the incomplete implementation for desktops. The entirely of the firmware and operating system are cryptographically verified with downgrade protection. The secure element is used to store the version metadata for downgrade protection for the OS and efuses are used for the firmware portion of it. It's fully integrated with the A/B update system with automatic rollback until reaching the home screen successfully.
@ferricoxide @luana It's the status quo on existing devices and has been one of the hardware requirements for GrapheneOS support for many years. Verified boot was introduced on the Nexus 5X and moved to an earlier version of the current approach with the Pixel 2. We've supported it since it was available and began considering it a requirement shortly afterwards. We only supported 2 generations of devices prior to it being available which could still be locked and had the firmware verification.
> Verified boot key fingerprint for yellow boot state displayed with a secure hash (non-truncated SHA-256 or better)
That applies even if the device has official GrapheneOS support with green verified boot state. Green verified boot state isn't mandatory of course but we'd like to have it. It could differentiate with a better UI.
Whether they'll be sold at retail with GrapheneOS preinstalled as an option isn't a question we can answer yet. It mostly comes down to Google's requirements and the extent to which those can be worked around or pushed to be relaxed.
i had bought a new moto in 25 in the hopes calyxos wld run on it, but i didnt pay enough attention and my new device was not supported and calyx went on hiatus. i guess ill require a new moto again for grapheneos support, but im kind of sick of moto now and i guess ill go with a crappy spec overpriced linux phone in the future and hope things eventually get better
Does this mean that the phones will come with a option to have GrapheneOS pre-installed or just officially supported and has to be installed by the user?
It's not hardware that interacts with software that concerns me. I'm talking about hardware with it's own firmware that is capable of capturing data and sending it without the OS even being aware. I wish I could remember the model or find the article but a year or so ago I read that an android phone model was found to be communicating with networks even while the phone was powered off.
To be clear, it's not that I don't trust you. I just have a hard time trusting huge corporations who have no opposition to the current US administration especially when they are part of a specific industry that heavily tries to dictate what you can and can't do on your phone.
I'm not trying to downplay how huge of a deal this is and it is exciting but I an concerned as well and I think it's important to make that fear known. @greenpete @joe9nf
Congratulations! My inner skeptic, though, would like to know what compromises GrapheneOS was asked to make. And what expected bullying you can expect from Motorola once the ink on the agreement is dry. I know I seem cynical, but I can't see a large corporation acting with complete good faith.
I checked the specs of Signature and Razr and noticed they have Dolby Vision support. When 2027 models do get supported by GrapheneOS, will it include Dolby Vision Support as well?, I ask because DoVi is proprietary.
I'm not sure where the Fair Phone is registered, but that would potentially be a much better fit. Though of course they may not be available for such a deal. @GrapheneOS @joe9nf
They say that they can't support Fairphone hardware unfortunately. I'm using a FP4 with Lineage now and I love it. User replaceable parts and a swappable battery.
I always hope Graphene and Fairphone would work something out because I've always thought they compliment each other well.
But also I'd rather give FP my money than Motorola
It's very hard for me to believe that a corporate partner won't find a way to enshittify this. That's what's for-profit corporations do. It's why I was attracted to GrapheneOS in the first place - to get away from corporate enshittification.
@tom It's a non-exclusive partnership and we're going to continue supporting Pixels. It's going to result in us getting early access to code which will substantially help us beyond this. They're going to be doing a lot of the work on supporting the devices so it's going to be far easier than if we did it all ourselves. We negotiated a good agreement where we both benefit a lot from it. They're going to sell a lot of devices because of having GrapheneOS support and won't be losing anything.
@tom We could eventually have other OEM partnerships as there's nothing exclusive about it but they have the huge advantage of being first. No other major Android OEM has gotten in touch with us and we're going to have our hands full with this for a while now. The reason for them wanting to have more secure devices with far better updates and GrapheneOS support is to make money. It's quite straightforward and everyone benefits. Showing how viable it is will get more OEM interest in GrapheneOS.
Man this post rubs me the wrong way. You ignore the main point I'm raising only to go on a rant telling me I'm using an extremely insecure device and actually attacking the manufacturer because of something someone else did (and to be clear you'll never hear me defend e/OS which is what I'm assuming you're referring to)
Let's be clear that you just tossed a company under the bus which is exactly what you were complaining about someone else doing to you. Is this about being right or doing what's right because those two things aren't always the same.
The e/OS thing was quite a while ago... At some point you are going to have to move on. @greenpete @joe9nf
The obsession with what someone else is saying about you quite literally frightens me about what you are doing. It's almost like a misdirection.
Also, archive.is has been caught DDoSing via their captcha and I believe there is at least some suspicion about ties to Russia. They've also been changing some text in their archives. arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20…
I didn't even bring e/OS up until you did. I hate e/OS... It's why my US bought FP uses Lineage now.
I've read all the stuff and e/OS.... You've literally blasted me with it again and still haven't set me at ease with what YOU are doing. I'm not looking for a fight... I'm looking for answers that have NOTHING to do with Fairphone or e/OS
It's not hardware that interacts with software that concerns me. I'm talking about hardware with it's own firmware that is capable of capturing data and sending it without the OS even being aware. I wish I could remember the model or find the article but a year or so ago I read that an android phone model was found to be communicating with networks even while the phone was powered off.
To be clear, it's not that I don't trust you. I just have a hard time trusting huge corporations who have no opposition to the current US administration especially when they are part of a specific industry that heavily tries to dictate what you can and can't do on your phone.
I'm not trying to downplay how huge of a deal this is and it is exciting but I an concerned as well and I think it's important to make that fear known. @greenpete @joe9nf
Where did I attack you? Someone else mentioned Fairphone and I said that you previously said you wouldn't support them.... Then you turned the hose on me complaining about Murena. I didn't even bring it up at all. And yes, I said you were being obsessive and that's apparently when you realized I was right and deleted all of your posts.
All I mentioned was my concern about *Motorola* potentially hiding a hardware device in the phone that the OS is unaware of.... Next thing I know you're yelling at me for using a Fairphone. @greenpete @joe9nf
@greenpete That's about mobile device management software, not anything in GrapheneOS or relevant to it. It isn't relevant to the hardware, kernel, drivers or firmware. It's just an MDM app.
@greenpete I don't think that matters because we can always install GrapheneOS to replace the pre-installed OS with Motorola software. The hardware is what's important to GrapheneOS and to us.
@greenpete This has always been my fear. I don't doubt @GrapheneOS has the best of intentions but I had always been concerned that they could start manufacturing Pixel phones with hardware much like a BMC can monitor a system without the OS being aware of it and it's not like you can remove the battery from a Pixel. There's also the issue of not wanting to give Motorola/Google my money. @joe9nf
@lumi @navi > It takes 50 minutes to make a completely clean build of the OS on a $500 Ryzen 9950X gaming CPU. It then takes seconds to do incremental builds for nearly all changes. What's the issue with that and how is it appaling?
That's not 3 days. There's a mismatch here and I'm not sure of its source. Does GrapheneOS simply do it better?
> It takes far longer to build a modern web browser
The web browser ecosystem is also considered a disaster we should probably give up on entirely and cease using.
Using split-up protocols with open standards/specifications and Free Software clients for those things that have unwisely been conflated and bundled into browsers haphazardly (making them subject to a large number of questionable development practices in the doing).
i did not have access to a $500 cpu, specially not back in late-2019 which is when i did this -- my system had a 7th gen i7, 16 gigabytes of ram, and was running on an SATA SSD, all of which is still a reasonable mid-to-high gaming system now a days
> At least 400 GB of free disk space to check out and build the code (250 GB to check out + 150 GB to build).
> A minimum of 64 GB of RAM. Google uses 72-core machines with 64 GB of RAM to build Android. With this hardware configuration, it takes approximately 40 minutes for a full build of Android and only a few minutes for incremental build of Android. By contrast, it takes approximately 6 hours for a full build with a 6-core machine with 64 GB of RAM.
like, ex-fucking-cuse me? 64 gigs of ram *minimum*?
google takes 40 minutes to build with a 72-core machine with 64 gigabytes of ram, now explain how are you hitting this perf on a 9950x
my current 6 core system with half as much ram (32 gigs) builds my whole gentoo system in about an hour (excluding web browsers and toolchains, since i doubt you're also building the whole NDK)
and at last, the point was about boostrapability, incremental builds do not help
> The GKI kernel doesn't contain SoC-specific or board-specific code.
😄 Are you making fun of me here or what's the goal here? Prove me you have right, even when obviously you don't have?
Linux kernel contains all SoC, board specific bits + drivers.
Let me translate for regular people: Google compiles minimal, itself not functional, Linux kernel core and then takes a glue (GKI) and put all the ugly stuff I mentioned in the first post it.....
> It takes over 32GB of memory to do a single production Linux kernel build for GrapheneOS because that's simply how much memory it takes to build the upstream kernel image with a very minimal configuration with LTO enabled
except not? i have built the linux kernel with less before, and it didn't take nearly as long -- not close to 3 days long as it took to attempt an aosp build on my old system back in 2019
and if 64 gigs takes 6 hours to build, any less would exponentially lengthen the build due to swapping and oom stalling, sure 64 gigs might not be the minimum but any less and you'd be spending days to build, which i did, which is unnacceptable
debug builds, with optimizations, is not only counter intuitive but also no your numbers don't add up
and even if they did, assuming a 9950X is a baseline is absurd and any normal system someone that isn't middle class from a first world country is going to be *far* from that metric
no, my family and friends growing up could not afford to think of "price over it's lifetime", what they could get were mid-range phones where anything with "pixel" on it were either not available in brasil, or prohibitively expensive for ~80% of the population
we could *not* afford to think in "years of support", we could not switch phones when support ended, 2 years of support? great, my friends would still be using their phones 5 years after that, and getting a new one only when that one broke
wake up to how people outside first world countries actually have to live, please
not to mention that a 8gb phone is plenty enough for basically anything except gaming
again it does not, i do not require full LTO to have a functional "production" linux kernel, i can setup a new gentoo system from scratch on a way cheaper machine
honestly, i'm done -- you're so self centered that you attack those that like your work, because they have criticisms, you ignore what is convenient and pull unfair comparisons to have it look reasonable
other projects taking a shit load of resources to build, does not make aosp look better, it just makes the group as a whole look worse, two wrongs doesn't make a right
So as I understand there's going to be a Motorola OS and as alternative GrapheneOS. A few questions: 1. Who holds the signing keys for the GrapheneOS variant? 2. Will I be able to buy a second hand Motorola-OS-edition and flash GrapheneOS? Will it then show a warning (I think it's called yellow boot state)? 3. Will this have any effect on safetynet? Probably not right, since it's not/can't be Android certified?
@GeorgWeissenbacher @lumi @alexia The hard part is resolving all of the regressions. It's quite painful just to do LTS revision updates with how badly the upstream code is tested and how many bugs get uncovered. Providing a production quality OS used by a huge number of people as a daily driver who mostly aren't very technical where there's an immense amount of non-easily-tested driver functionality for USB, Bluetooth, etc. means those poorly reviewed and tested upstream changes are problematic.
@GeorgWeissenbacher @lumi @alexia Linux is used as a very serious project for an enormous amount of products but it's not developed in anything close to a careful way. There's a reason people use those enterprise distributions with an ancient frozen kernel with barely anything backported compared to the short-lived upstream LTS kernel branches. Pixels are using the 2 year lifetime upstream LTS branches and it's not fun to actually stay close to the latest revision as we do.
@GeorgWeissenbacher @lumi @alexia Moving to a whole different branch is far worse. It actually tends to help us a lot after the move to the new branch is done because a lot doesn't get backported and we find tons of memory corruption via hardware memory tagging in real world ujsage. However, there's immense pain in the initial move and changes to things like f2fs are horrifying with how badly everything is tested and reviewed. Backports are done so haphazardly for the longterm kernels...
Nobody has attacked you. Conveying technical details is not self centered. By that logic, teachers and experts can never discuss their field with anyone without being self centered.
You liking GOSs work does not grant you a pass for anything. Part of GOSs work is this, refuting misinformation or correcting inaccuracies. You being upset with what the details are does not mean it is acceptable to attack and insult others.
because a) you completely ignore anything else i say, including the two times i said that third world countries don't get pixel phones, specially not cheap ones, and b) because you said it yourself:
> > firstly, don’t see this as an attack on GrapheneOS > Okay, but that's how we see it.
It's been years of GrapheneOS publicity/social media activity making the maintainers look self-centered and ignorant. I have to tell anyone I recommend GrapheneOS to not look at your social media activity. If you can't take criticism, how are you going to ensure security through peer reviews? How will users be able to trust your ability to work together to make secure software when this is how you treat people who disagree with you?
Stubborn, self-centered people are a risk factor in InfoSec because these attributes indicate closed-mindedness. You have to work on this if you want people to (continue to) trust you with this project.
@charlesdelavalleepoussin It's a device management feature for enterprise devices for their own operating system. It isn't relevant to GrapheneOS unless they want to support device management for GrapheneOS itself via apps people can install for it and that wouldn't be bundled with GrapheneOS but rather something people would need to set up. We plan to make an open source device management system for enterprise use so it likely makes sense to do our own thing. The 3 things aren't connected.
@linux_is_best Motorola's high end phones are well received including having top tier CPU, GPU and camera performance. They already started providing lengthy support and the GrapheneOS support will have better updates than the stock Pixel OS similarly to what we already provide for Pixels. The whole point of the partnership is that no existing non-Pixel devices meet our requirements and an OEM needs to work with us to improve their devices to meet all of our standards for us to support them.
@linux_is_best Motorola Signature (2026) is one rank ahead of the Pixel 10 Pro XL in dxomark.com/smartphones/ and has far better CPU and GPU performance via the 1 step from highest end Qualcomm SoC. The future devices we end up supporting have a high chance of using the highest end Qualcomm SoC.
It's not their ultra low-end budget devices which are being worked on. Their high end flagships for 2026 are close to meeting our requirements but not quite there yet so the next gen is what's relevant.
When Motorola tells us they will provide X years of updates — let’s say, for argument’s sake, seven years — we will likely receive seven updates. We will lag behind on security updates for months. Bugs will be discovered, reported, and well documented, but never addressed. Most of their battery drain will come from their own bloated Motorola apps, and there will be many.
I wish you had chosen any other provider. Really — any.
@linux_is_best No, that's not how it's going to be at all. GrapheneOS is going to have our own updates and we won't have to depend on the stock OS updates being released. We already provide security updates months before Pixels. You know we already had all of the March 2026 updates for a while before today's release, right? We have a lot of the June 2026 and later patches already. We're shipping them way earlier than anyone else and will continue it. We'll ship Qualcomm, etc. stuff on time.
@linux_is_best You seem to be missing that the reason we need a partnership is because there isn't a single non-Pixel OEM providing what we need on their own which we could simply use without collaboration as we do with Pixels. We need them to work with us and give us what we need to provide the level of updates and security GrapheneOS is expected to provide. We can't support their devices without this because we need more than what's available without a partnership. That's the whole point.
Anyone can disprove your statement by visiting any social media group surrounding Motorola -- you're pick. I, would direct you to Reddit's subreddit for example reddit.com/r/motorola
@linux_is_best Subreddits where people go to complain and obtain help with problems are filled with that. Pixel subreddit is filled with it and it doesn't mean they're bad devices or that people have significantly more problems with them than other devices. You can't compare it to somewhere like the Apple subreddit where it's heavily downvoted or even not allowed. It's not a meaningful way to obtain information about it. Pixels/iPhones also don't have the very low end budget devices...
@linux_is_best It's not the very low end devices with low quality components, low build quality and short support time which are relevant to us at this time. Those are too far from meeting our requirements. It's a partnership which will be initially focused on the devices comparable to the flagship Pixels. Once the better security and updates trickle down to lower end devices we can begin supporting those but we won't start doing it until it does. If people go with budget they know it's worse.
Huuuuuh. Motorola used to be a good choice for custom ROMs till they switched to shipping mediatek SoCs. Presumably if Graphene is getting support from Motorola that will make it more practical for other Android-derived OSes... neat!
@izzy They'll be flagship Snapdragon devices. Look at the Motorola Signature (2026), Motorola razr fold (2026) and Motorola razr ultra (2026) for examples of the current generation devices which don't quite meet our requirements yet but are very close. They moved to providing some level of updates for 7 years for these. The next gen will be better and meet all our requirements. One of those requirements is getting everything we need to match or exceed Pixel updates for drivers/firmware, etc.
@izzy 7 years of support enables used devices to act as great budget devices with far better support and security than actual budget devices. That's what's already happening with Pixels where the Pixel 8 and later have 7 years of support. Pixel 8a and Pixel 9a are past gen budget Pixels so there are great deals but there's plenty of support remaining. People who can't afford the devices new can get the same devices after a few years with plenty of support left. It sidesteps a lot of issues.
Ah, not quite as exciting as hoped then. Was thinking of the Moto G3 being peak midrange phone in 2014 with excellent aftermarket support for $300 or less new, and that the partnership meant _someone_ would get the docs and sources Mediatek is so bad at providing. Still cool, but
@izzy Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 is currently the only SoC meeting our security requirements on paper and would need a LOT of work to meet them in practice. It has MTE support on paper but that's different from it being properly integrated and all the issues with it for broad usage in the kernel and userspace resolved.
MediaTek doesn't have everything we need and also has a very poor track record on security compared to Qualcomm. It wouldn't really be usable any time soon for GrapheneOS devices.
@izzy Pixel 8 and later have 7 years of support from launch. There are already great budget devices for GrapheneOS via used Pixel 8a and used Pixel 9a devices. Pixel 10a is about to launch and 10th gen flagships have been out for a while so there are good deals for those but plenty of support left. The concept of budget devices isn't really necessary if enough people keep moving to new devices and putting their old ones on the market as used devices in good condition. Battery replacements help.
It was your point that Motorola is the partner because they want to make money. If the people are only able to buy their phones after some others already did and now resell them, I don't See how they profit. People buying the high Ende devices for Graphene may exist AS well but in WhatsApo rate
This is the best news I've heard recently. Atleast now app developers will ditch the Google Play Integrity crap and provide first class support for alternative platforms.
really hoping this is gonna be cheaper than a pixel at current prices cause that'll probably be a killer for me if a graphene OS phone costs 900 dollars
Good news. I think u guys should partner with Asus too. They have good hardware & I heard that Asus is going to stop making more phones. So why not partner with them and start selling with ur OS
@GOKUSHRM Our partnership is Motorola is not exclusive and we're fully allowed to partner with other OEMs. However, we don't currently have the resources to partner with additional OEMs and it will likely be a while before we do.
Partnerning to make smartphones with a company which recently discontinued their smartphones doesn't sound workable. The point is also mainly getting an OEM to raise their security to meet our requirements rather than getting an OEM to sell devices with GrapheneOS.
@GOKUSHRM We're not going to lower our standards to expand device support so if they can't or won't meet the requirements then there's not much to talk about. That's why most of the smaller OEMs are ruled out because they can't afford or are at least unwilling to invest in the required security including long term updates and a high end SoC. The device itself doesn't have to be high end as a whole but the SoC needs to be high end to get long term support and the current era security features.
@GOKUSHRM SoC licensing is very expensive especially for the latest and greatest. No one really wants to use a flagship SoC in anything but a flagship device.
doing PGO on a development build (considering the guide is meant for developers) is insane IMO
that's something one would do on their final fully optimized build, not for development, and specially not if the need to debug anything in native code is there...
from what i recall in my encounters with googlers: it's pgo.
from my own experience on gentoo lto adds around 30% memory pressure and pgo adds around 50%, compile time is mostly unaffected with lto but pgo quadruples it.
meaning you could run with less memory, by reducing the amount of parallel builds, except that would make the already long 6 hour build time increase close to exponentially
It has a package manager and has out-of-band updates to the APEX and APK components along with separate updates for boot, vendor and system images. Most of the core userspace OS is in APEX modules now.
also keep in mind each compile thread uses memory. blender rn uses like 30 gb to compile because i'm giving it 24 threads, especially when it comes to the render kernels bit since it's a single giant file.
It's the number of logical cores which determine the number of jobs by default. In general, Android builds should have 2GB per logical core unless the number of jobs is lowered.
Can you share if all future Motorola devices will support GrapheneOS in the future or if there will be one special/specific device with the necessary hardware?
@1a5cff5118d071a2c5d46534733abb9f3dcdfc41b24db0132fc20dbf01c75f78 It will be a specific subset of their devices with GrapheneOS support. The Motorola Signature (2026) and Motorola Razr Fold (2026) for recent devices which are close to meeting our requirements but not quite there. There's a lot of work to do for the next generation devices supporting GrapheneOS. We would have liked to support the 2026 devices but there wasn't enough time and Qualcomm's MTE support wasn't ready yet.
@indigoamber It has to start with those because they'll be the first meeting our update and security feature requirements. Lower end devices can gradually be supported as the improved updates and security features trickle down to those.
@1a5cff5118d071a2c5d46534733abb9f3dcdfc41b24db0132fc20dbf01c75f78 it'll almost certainly be specific devices just due to how ARM chips work. Every chipset needs its own special drivers, which means you can't make a universal version to run on most devices. On top of Graphene being very strict on hardware feature requirement, which was part of why Pixels were the only supported phones until now
@rogueren @1a5cff5118d071a2c5d46534733abb9f3dcdfc41b24db0132fc20dbf01c75f78 A large portion of the GrapheneOS hardening is device specific and having device specific builds is inherently more secure due to lower attack surface and being able to specialize the builds with features like RANDSTRUCT for each device model. Aside from that, most of their devices aren't going to be able to meet our requirements. It will initially be several flagships meeting our requirements and then more over time.
Looking forward to seeing where this partnership takes the project. It's been great watching continued support of the Pixel line of phones, so throwing in an official partner organization is exciting.
I don't care if it's shit, I don't care if it's 1500€, I'm getting one. Ideally more than one if it's on the budget end. A budget Moto G at the 150€ mark with GrapheneOS would be the ultimate "if i'm under risk this is becoming a foldable".
@bill88t The initially supported ones will be expensive flagships but we do want to have budget devices eventually. It's harder to meet our update and security feature requirements for those. Look at the Motorola Signature (2026), Motorola razr ultra (2026) and Motorola razr fold (2026) for an idea of how the next gen devices will likely be. These current gen ones are way closer to our requirements than previous devices but not quite there yet.
@bobkmertz@techhub.social See grapheneos.org/faq#future-devi… for our list of requirements. Cellular modem isolation has been present on even the first device we supported (Nexus 5). It predates having proper isolation for Wi-Fi / Bluetooth.
@bobkmertz @greenpete @joe9nf That was most likely the modem and in some early mobiles there was zero isolation preventing the modem from simply reading all the memory bus.
(The modem should be understood as a blackbox device at the mercy of hostile infrastructure providers & "authorities", it is attack surface.)
I would hope that such isolation is part of the GrapheneOS safety requirements.
given that Moto will have to release new devices with the support, I really hope to see something "small" - iPhone 13 Mini / SE size, for less than 1000€... One can dream.
I think flip times were fun, but are over. I also think we have so few resources and so much technical knowledge, that we should do the basic extremely well...
Apple [sic] does something like that when launching new ideas, and even with old ideas.
Minimalism means focus, means that fewer force results in greater pressure.
Lefa just make the best smartphone that most people use. Win the race. And then winner takes it all and can create stuff that nobody buys.
my worry is about durability. A small debri when folding it and it's game over. I love the idea of ThinkPhone, just needs a small variant! Durable, secure and small.
If they #Motorola could add #LoRa or something similar that could be a game changer.
They would offer something that other companies don't, while there is demand from users.
It also brings privacy advantages as it makes it easier to communicate undetected from cell towers. People are starting to roll out networks covering wide areas.
In addition to that, it adds an element of resilience where people could continue to communicate even when cell towers are shut down. This is especially important during national disasters and governments overreach shutting down internet access.
This is a premature joke for the 1. April, right? 😳🤔😂🤣
Choosing a company like Motorola with it's owner Lenovo behind it for the reasons of privacy and security isn't beyond a good idea but pure hypocrisy and a punch in the guts for all of the supporters of GrapheneOS in my opinion. 🖕
@kranzkrone GrapheneOS is a non-profit organization and no money is changing hands with Motorola. What do you think greed has to do with it? There's huge demand for us supporting an alternative to Pixels and we're doing that by working with an OEM. If you want to continue using Pixels then you can continue doing so. Google and Samsung are the only top 10 Android OEMs by sales which aren't Chinese-owned. We can't force Samsung to want to partner with us and the same applies to Sony too.
The point isn’t whether GrapheneOS receives money from Motorola.
The point is the consistency of the security and trust model you advocate! 🙄
GrapheneOS often emphasizes minimizing trust in large corporations, opaque supply chains, and potential state influence.
Yet Motorola is owned by Lenovo, a Chinese company operating under a legal environment where state access to companies can be mandated.
If the argument is that users should minimize trust and maximize verifiable security, partnering with an OEM embedded in that jurisdiction raises legitimate questions.
This isn’t about “greed” but about coherence of principles.
If Chinese OEM ownership is usually framed as a risk in privacy discussions, it seems inconsistent to dismiss those concerns when it becomes convenient for hardware support.
Criticism here isn’t hostility—it’s asking whether the same standards are being applied consistently. 😉
@kranzkrone It's quite apparent you're using an LLM to generate concern troll replies. It's incoherent and lacks actual substance. We're not going to be interacting with a text generator someone has directed to waste our time and energy.
If you don't want us banning your instance and making a public post asking everyone else to do the same then remove both of these AI generated replies and stop bothering us.
Here's our policy on AI generated content for discussions:
It's indeed quite apparent that you acting out in the same way like you did in the past when the founder of GrapheneOS had a personal dispute with another somewhat prominent personality of the tech world.
If you don't want me to further investigate your toxic behavior of communication and try to framing me as the bad one, you should definitely thread lightly.
Threatening me with whatever action won't result in deleting my previous posts but instead will strengthen my personal investment in further interactions and maybe legal actions.
Louis Rossmann may would find this interesting to read too.
@kranzkrone You've moved on from posting low quality concern trolling which appears to be at least partially generated by an LLM to blatant libel and support for harassment. We haven't framed you for anything. Your replies to our thread make it clear what you're doing.
Louis Rossmann orchestrated harassment towards our founder by making many extraordinarily dishonest claims in a video where he engaged in blatant bullying. Rossmann is openly a Kiwi Farms user and is the one who involved them.
If I may ask, as various sources say otherwise. Will there be one dedicated model with GrapheneOS out of the box, and will the rest of the models be hardware-ready for installing this system? Or is hardware support and manual installation the only option?
@libresoftwarelover The phones will be available in Brazil at least to install the OS yourself. We aren't sure about the availability of devices with it preinstalled yet since it's very early and we don't know which barriers may come up for that and whether it could launch in some regions but not others.
since the bootloader will trust the grapheneos keys I can't imagine why would safetynet and the other play protect mechanisms won't pass attestation (for all intents and purposes graphene would be indistinguishable from the stock Motorola image)
if that's the case I'll buy the device the moment it comes out...
@dzervas It's not going to change anything about the Play Integrity API which would be an entirely different thing. It should be able to have a green boot state (not necessarily immediate at launch) but that doesn't mean that Google Play is going to allow it because we won't have an allowlisted build fingerprint.
@dzervas Potentially but it's not something we want to bring up right now rather than focusing on adding GrapheneOS support, meeting our hardware requirements and getting some additional security features implemented. The main way they could eventually help is getting app developers to add support for using GrapheneOS either by removing the Play Integrity API (idealy) or adding hardware-based attestation permitting GrapheneOS as a replacement or alternative to the Play Integrity API.
Saremo presenti a questo pranzo sociale per presentare il progetto V.O.C.I. - Venezia Operatori Culturali Insieme Chi volesse saperne di più può scrivermi in privato. #Venezia #Mestre #Piraghetto #Vocivenezia #Vivapiraghetto
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
@GrapheneOS @lumi @alexia well, to be fair, you wrote "it's a lot of work which is meant to be done by the OEM and their hardware partners" (referring to providing mainline branches of the kernel)
@stovis It's entirely possible to use a newer kernel branch whether it's an AOSP-based OS or not but it's a lot of work which is meant to be done by the OEM and their hardware partners to keep providing updates to the device for more than a year or so. Linux kernel LTS branches are back to only 2 years of support so there's an expectation that vendors are moving to a new kernel branch. Most OEMs and Linux distributions aren't doing it but it's what the Linux project expects.
We're happy to announce a long-term partnership with Motorola. We're collaborating on future devices meeting our privacy and security standards with official GrapheneOS support.
Steinberg gibt Audio-Schnittstellen ASIO und VST unter Open-Source-Lizenzen frei
Software-Entwickler können die Audio-Schnittstellen künftig in Open-Source-Software einbinden. Das öffnet den Weg für eine breitere Nutzung unter Linux.
Cool. Aber wie konnte dann bisher Asio4All möglich und kostenlos sein, wenn Steinberg scheinbar ein Recht über ASIO hatte? (Und wieso geht das überhaupt bei so einer grundlegenden Technologie?)
de.asio4all.org/about/ Danke an Asio4all. Ohne das könntre ich ohne ext. Hardware die einen eigenen ASIO-Treiber mitbringt nicht vernünftig (=latenzarm) Musik machen. Nutze ich seit ca. 20 Jahren. ❤️ (S.a. heise.de/download/product/asio… )
Gioca con le parole “cuore” e “arte” ed è fatta dai disegni dei bambini della Striscia, raccolti dal palestinese Mohammed Timraz e dall’irlandese Féile Butler.
Ieri sera abbiamo avuto il piacere di partecipare all'inaugurazione della mostra Heart of Gaza presso la biblioteca comunale di Spinea con una breve performance musicale.
È stato molto toccante leggere le storie dei bambini di Gaza e confrontarsi con la realtà delle loro lotte quotidiane e delle loro sofferenze. Nessuno di noi può immaginare cosa si provi a vivere in quel modo. Nessun bambino dovrebbe mai subire tutto questo. Ecco perché il lavoro di Mohamed Timraz è così importante.
tentapes team X Heart Of Gaza. Last night we had the pleasure of taking part in the opening of the Heart of Gaza exhibition at the Spinea municipal library with a short musical performance. It was very moving to read the stories of the children in Gaza and to get a reality check on their daily struggles and suffering. None of us can imagine what it feels like to live like that. No child should have to go through these things.That is why the work of Mohamed Timraz is so important.
bellissimi complimenti!!! Io sto cercando di uscire da un blocco artistico e per farlo ho usato l'ia ma solo per farmi creare una lista di soggetti, senza creazione di immagini, solo testo. Non so se ho fatto bene a procedere in questo modo 🥲 ma mi sta leggermente aiutando.
@AleF2050 studia i tuoi gesti allo specchio e prova a disegnarli. Cerca foto con pose che ti interessano e prova a disegnarle. Guarda la gente in metro o sul treno e prova a disegnarla. Osservare e riprodurre è davvero l'unico consiglio che penso sia valido per chiunque voglia disegnare 😀
30100 EP è il mio primo disco rap! Ed è pazzesco quanto amore stia ricevendo da questa scena. Tanti repost, tanti consigli, tante persone che non conoscevo che mi scrivono di continuare a fare rap. Venendo dal mondo della musica elettronica questo è veramente una novità per me.. Ai miei amici dj e producer (house-techno-ukg etc) del veneziano dico: tiratevela meno e supportate la scena locale che alla fine sarà quella che forse vi salverà... Bless
Questo è il mio fumetto vincitore del concorso 2025 della Revue Italia a tema neurodivergenza e salute mentale. Lo potrete trovare nel prossimo numero della rivista e sul volume che racchiuderà tutti i fumetti che hanno partecipato al concorso.
@ed Ciao! Mi fa piacere che ti sia piaciuto!! Per ora non ho ancora un sito personale (ci sto ancora lavorando), però nei prossimi giorni pubblicherò altre cose qui su Livello Segreto👌
@ed Grazie! Dopo quella su Doc Manhattan, mi sono sentito ispirato a proseguire: rappresentano il ritorno alle origini che sto vivendo in questo periodo.
Rising from the dark waters of the lagoon comes the sound of Dj Nap.
Deeply inspired by the post-dubstep sound of the late 2000s, the EP captures the anger, romanticism, and melancholy of a twenty-something in the 2020s. Like memories dissolving into the Venetian fog after a boat ride back from an unreachable party.
Haven't got around to making a video for anything I've done yet. Really busy this time of year. Will submissions be open after the station starts? Might have time in the new year...
@t3hh great! Yes I think so. We are really committed to improving the music discovery landscape, and it’s a whole big group of people. So if one needs to drop out, another can take over.
I hope this grows interest, usage and support for the #owncast Roku app. it's great but the potential to also support #peertube and compete against YT, Rumble etc is huge.
@alan interesting, thanks! I’ll pass it along to the server admins and see what they think. We are running Owncast and will be also hosting chat for the launch, so might be a bit more complicated…
Totally understand — launch week is sacred. If it helps later, we’re happy to just handle video relay and leave chat entirely with you. No rush either way
@alan are you running Owncast as well? Just wondering how we could possibly share the load (a few more of us have servers too!) … do you mean to redirect some viewers to different sites, and all ingest the same RTMP stream?
There might be a way to merge chats in the future as well…
@ddlyh That "you will be able to enter your fruity chat messages" notice isn't coming from Owncast itself, so something looks like it was tweaked there. I'm super excited about this, since I tried doing a 24/7 MTV-style music video stream in the past and couldn't get anybody to submit anything. So this is wonderful that it's working out way better than I ever did.
Yeah, re: the chat window. My “fruity” message is just normal HTML in between the two iframes (video + chat) — I didn’t tweak anything in the iframe itself, and the Owncast server is just at defaults
Fingers crossed the mention of fruit didn’t shock the chat window into retreat 🤞🏻🍒
This is awesome. I'm sending to my folk music friends, some of my unwarranted feedback at first glance: -Fedi mtv is a better name than indie beat fm -colour code/font choices are somewhat uncool
The design overall feels outdated. Idk if it's owncast itself or this specific project
Ho quasi ultimato di organizzare lo studio per il 2026. Ho ancora del lavoro da fare per riuscire a settare le mie due schede audio per utilizzarle contemporaneamente con una latenza accettabile. Sto provando con Pipewire, ma probabilmente tornerò a Jack. Ovviamente su Windows per farlo sarei diventato idrofobo (o forse è ancora impossibile, chissà), sotto Linux è ancora a PITA, ma ce la faremo! Allego foto del buon #RVRSRVR che prova a darmi una mano. @tentapes
"Meta spies on us and then allows predators to use that surveillance to destroy our lives for the same reason that your dog licks its balls: because they can." Thank You @pluralistic mamot.fr/@pluralistic/11551482…
Reuters' Jeff Horwitz analyzes leaked memos that reveal that: 10% of Meta revenue comes from scam ads, and; Meta knows it, and; decided not to stop about it, because; the fines for facilitating life-destroying fraud are less than the revenue from helping destroy users' lives:
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
Ricordiamo che su Poliverso non sono ammessi post che esprimano odio o disprezzo verso categorie di persone: questo tipo di contenuti determina la sospensione immediata! Si possono esprimere opinioni di ogni genere, anche in controtendenza rispetto al comune sentire, ma ci sono delle regole da rispettare.
Queste sono le regole di Poliverso:
0) L'utente deve conoscere la fediquette, una netiquette del fediverso 1) L'utente che utilizza Poliverso deve sentirsi più felice, più sereno, più aperto alla discussione e più fiducioso nell'intelligenza e buona fede altrui. In caso contrario è meglio che cambi istanza 2) Poliverso è parte del fediverso e vuole continuare a farne parte: ogni atteggiamento ostile o comportamento tossico verso utenti di altre istanze comporterà la sospensione 3) E' vietata la pubblicazione di contenuti illegali, contenuti disturbanti (senza contrassegnarli come sensibili), spam, comportamenti e discorsi d'odio e disinformazione (trucchetto per individuare la disinformazione: se prima di postare un contenuto la prima domanda che vi ponete è "Come posso sapere se è disinformazione?", allora è disinformazione) 4) Sono consentiti account istituzionali, commerciali o promozionali, purché la comunicazione avvenga in italiano e non sia equiparabile allo spam 5) Friendica non dispone di un sistema di moderazione: per minimizzare i rischi di sistema, gli utenti che non seguono l'amministratore o che non gli rispondono tempestivamente, potrbbero essere espulsi dalla piattaforma. 6) Se vuoi dare un'occhiata alla timeline locale, guarda qui. Se non ti piace, puoi iscriverti altrove (qui puoi esportare il tuo account per portarlo in un'altra istanza)
Esiste una #fediquette? La risposta breve è sì, ma abbiamo creato un post per spiegarlo meglio. E ricordiamoci sempre che la parola #fediverso contiene le radici delle due parole più importanti per la socialità universale: alleanza e diversità. #Netiquette
"There are several possible dates you might pick, but for me it will always be September 5th 2014 - when I committed the first sketch of a specification I called ActivityPump and pushed it to Github."
The obvious choice for ActivityPub’s birthday would be the 23rd of January 2018 - the day it was annointed as a W3C recommendation. That doesn’t seem quite right though - its not as if the spec came into existence in any sense upon that date. In fact, Mastodon implemented it before thne.
It wouldn’t be until November that I actually submitted (a revised and enhanced version of) that draft to the working group, but even then I had the very nucleus of the specification written down.
'Google has agreed to pay a $55 million fine after it admitted that deals the tech giant struck with Telstra and Optus, banning them from installing rival search engines on some smartphones they sold, amounted to anticompetitive conduct.' afr.com/technology/google-fine… #competition #auslaw #auspol #competition #ACCC #monopoly #telcos
The consumer watchdog has scored a victory against Google, after the search giant agreed to a $55 million penalty over deals with Telstra, Optus and TPG.
Piove! Qual'è la migliore app android per il meteo secondo voi? Ne avevo trovato una carina ma mi piacerebbe fosse più privacy oriented e non si vendesse tutti i miei dati. #android #app #meteo #tempo #WeatherForecast
io uso Windy. È dettagliata per i venti, amata dai surfisti. Però mostra le previsioni meteo e ti permette di vedere le previsioni secondo i diversi modelli meteo. A me pare che il modello ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) sia quello più preciso, ma la mia opinione non fa statistica. Inoltre c'è la versione a pagamento, ma io ho sempre usato quella free e non ho mai avuto necessità di fare l' upgrade.
sulla questione privacy non ti saprei dire ma sulla qualità delle previsioni secondo me 3BMeteo è una delle migliori, poi uso Windy per le mappe interattive.
@ramocalnasip @dariosoldi grazie a entrambi, su vostro suggerimento sto provando windy e devo dire che è molto interessante. Se non mi martellano in continuazione chiedendomi di pagare magari me la compro anche 😂
Ecco i comandi indispensabili per cercare qualsiasi cosa sul tuo sistema Linux 😎👇
Su Linux puoi trovare tutto: file, percorsi, pattern di testo con risultati alla velocità della luce.
@linux@diggita.com
zaphod
in reply to inari • • •Ekky
in reply to zaphod • • •WATCH: Bound4blue suction sails installed on first of five Maersk Tankers’ vessels - Offshore Energy
Nadja Skopljak (Offshore Energy)like this
Get_Off_My_WLAN likes this.
zaphod
in reply to Ekky • • •like this
bluGill likes this.
wewbull
in reply to zaphod • • •bluGill
in reply to wewbull • • •wewbull
in reply to bluGill • • •bluGill
in reply to wewbull • • •SaveTheTuaHawk
in reply to wewbull • • •MinnesotaGoddam
in reply to wewbull • • •inari
in reply to zaphod • • •like this
Get_Off_My_WLAN e bluGill like this.
Digitalprimate
in reply to inari • • •Ok sorry I will be that guy.
At the outset, let me say renewables are the end goal and the best outcome.
That said there are a number of problems with this approach. This chart doesn't define what 40% it's talking about. Which is actually impossible because metrics in shipping are considered different for different types of ships and trade. I assume this map/post/thing about deadweight tons (DWT), which is the metric you judge liquid and sold bulk goods. For containers it's TEU (twenty foot equivalent units), for offshore vessels it is often but not always bollard pull, for cruise ships its passenger to crew ratio, etc.
Also the original poster may be referring to total tonnage by metric X (dwt, displacement, raw number of ships) or some other unknown metric)
But let's assume this is a good faith argument. In terms of bulk commodities, it is probably true that nearly half the fleet by deadweight is shipping coal, crude, refined products, LNG/LPG. But that is an effect of the size of ships one uses to transport such commodities - they are always very big ships even though there are far more many smaller ships in terms of raw numbers.
And in any case the problem is demand. If people want cheap shit from China and cheap oil from the Gulf, someone is going to ship it. Renewables are the way forward, but if you want to transport a lot of stuff or a lot of people that you cannot transport by rail, planes and ships are the answer. No other source has the energy density of petroleum to ship stuff.
Somewhat ironically, per ton-mile (i.e., how much stuff you can carry per mile), shipping is by FAR the most efficient way in terms of energy consumed. The pollution from ships is horrible, even changing certain weather patterns in the N Pacific, but as long as we have the demand, it will exist.
lumpenproletariat
in reply to zaphod • • •40% of 60% of all current ships is still a lot less than 40% of 100% of all current ships.
Also there are sail assisted cargo vessels.
Needless to say, there is a lot of room for easy, quick, and achievable today improvement.
A cargo ship’s ‘WindWing’ sails saved it up to 12 tons of fuel per day
Andrew Paul (Popular Science)RamenJunkie
in reply to zaphod • • •They did not mean the ships become green energy ship, they meant the ships would no longet be sailing at all because we don't need to ship the coal etc.
Also, brrak the larger ships down into several sailing ships. Infinite small sailing ships would be more green than one large fuel burning ship.
🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞
in reply to RamenJunkie • • •And infinite small sailing ships could all simulatenously dock at our fractal infinitely long shorelines, all unloading their infinitely small cargo at the same instant, simultanously flooding the earth with infinite amounts of oil and zero amounts of oil that we wouldn't notice at all. 😀
MinnesotaGoddam
in reply to RamenJunkie • • •Clocks [They/Them]
in reply to zaphod • • •zaphod
in reply to Clocks [They/Them] • • •Dippy
in reply to zaphod • • •ManfredMumpitz
in reply to inari • • •like this
Get_Off_My_WLAN likes this.
Petter1
in reply to inari • • •this is one of the reasons fossil isn’t replaced as fast as it could and should be
Rooster326
in reply to inari • • •Inb4
SupahRevs
in reply to Rooster326 • • •gandalf_der_12te
in reply to Rooster326 • • •funnily enough renewable energy is probably gonna be the biggest driver of the economy in the next 10 years or so, considering that a lot of new infrastructure has to be built for it and they will generate a lot of power to drive further manufacturing.
RedGreenBlue
in reply to inari • • •Imgonnatrythis
in reply to inari • • •It's 2026 people, let's redefine what progress means! 🦅💪🎇
wewbull
in reply to inari • • •🍉 Albert 🍉
in reply to wewbull • • •Asfalttikyntaja
in reply to 🍉 Albert 🍉 • • •modus
in reply to Asfalttikyntaja • • •Asfalttikyntaja
in reply to modus • • •jaybone
in reply to Asfalttikyntaja • • •modus
in reply to jaybone • • •wewbull
in reply to modus • • •🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞
in reply to Asfalttikyntaja • • •ulterno
in reply to Asfalttikyntaja • • •jaybone
in reply to ulterno • • •ulterno
in reply to jaybone • • •Well, the average deck hand can stay working at the normal ships that are shipping other stuff.
The above average ones can become a deck hand for the newer vehicles for deep sea operations.
Both are probably already paid low enough that corporate can easily pay them while reducing shipping rates at the same time.
jaybone
in reply to ulterno • • •I’m thinking the deep sea exploration pays a bit more than a guy who can hook some cables on a crate.
But wtf do I know…
ulterno
in reply to jaybone • • •The only thing that matters is whether there will be someone wanting to do so.
dylanmorgan
in reply to Asfalttikyntaja • • •FundMECFS
in reply to Asfalttikyntaja • • •wonderingwanderer
in reply to Asfalttikyntaja • • •merc
in reply to Asfalttikyntaja • • •What kind of abomination is this?
MinnesotaGoddam
in reply to merc • • •Asfalttikyntaja
in reply to merc • • •ayyy
in reply to Asfalttikyntaja • • •Digitalprimate
in reply to wewbull • • •5715
in reply to inari • • •altphoto
in reply to inari • • •Blum0108
in reply to altphoto • • •Unless it's officially propped up by governments at the behest of rich and powerful fossil fuel lobbies!
It's inevitable that it will end some day, but not nearly as fast as it otherwise organically would.
MrMakabar
in reply to altphoto • • •The big costs comes from building the infrastructure for fossil fuels. So as soon as demand falls, you have a huge part of the bill has been paid already. So you get low fossil fuel prices. You need to keep in mind that most large oil producers are state owned. Therefore those states will try to shut down other suppliers production.
You can see that already with sanctions against Russia and Iran to keep US oil producers going strong.
gandalf_der_12te
in reply to altphoto • • •economic model of price determination in microeconomics
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)altphoto
in reply to gandalf_der_12te • • •Yes, thats assumed. However we are taking into account that machinery rusts away quickly. If you stop one refinery for example, that's not a smooth change, its an abrupt step. If we stay steady below the usual high, then trying to come back will be expensive. For that reason we'll see the price increase slowly...you need the fuel, so its a seller's market, they need to get paid as if their load was double in case they need to double. At some point it might drop a bit until it becomes a luxury item.
Here's an example where the price is going up became the supply keeps dropping and the demand keeps increasing regardless of the supply situation:
The same would happen to ice cars. People still want to use them if they have them, but the market keeps shrinking.
HrabiaVulpes
in reply to inari • • •general_kitten
in reply to HrabiaVulpes • • •in the US i found figures ranging from 6 to 12% the largest sector by usage is road traffic using ~45% of the oil in us
here's a chart for EU
like this
bluGill likes this.
nodiratime
in reply to general_kitten • • •But accounting (oil, co2...) for end products is surprisingly difficult.
HrabiaVulpes
in reply to general_kitten • • •Kekzkrieger
in reply to inari • • •Imagine not having to rely on countries to pump up oil and polluting the earth by burning it.
We have the technology, but for some reason we want to rely on some other party and pay tons of money.
vga
in reply to inari • • •rbos
in reply to inari • • •eleitl
in reply to inari • • •AdolfSchmitler
in reply to inari • • •skuzz
in reply to inari • • •If the post is even accurate, that likely doesn't factor in secondary needs. Roads, tires, shampoo, soap, lubricants, hydrogen, solvents, medical plastics. So many things made from oil and oil byproducts.
All of these industries have to be looking into alternatives in parallel, if they are even aware.
BurnedDonutHole
in reply to skuzz • • •skuzz
in reply to BurnedDonutHole • • •MinnesotaGoddam
in reply to skuzz • • •skuzz
in reply to MinnesotaGoddam • • •WoodScientist
in reply to BurnedDonutHole • • •BurnedDonutHole
in reply to WoodScientist • • •In the context of bioplastics the challenge is that the 17.5% of people in high-income countries are currently the only ones with the infrastructure and the disposable income to easily adopt expensive non-petroleum products and produce them as well. As for the other 82.5%, petroleum-based plastics remain the standard because they are significantly cheaper to produce and easier to manage in traditional waste streams. So, unless these replacement comes in cheap and easily producible forms we are far from replacing anything in the near future.
Mr_WorldlyWiseman
in reply to skuzz • • •The vast majority of oil and gas consumption is just burning the shit in a pile
The oil companies want you to think about plastics to make you think all the oil we drill is important, but it's actually only a tiny fraction. It's all propaganda.
skuzz
in reply to Mr_WorldlyWiseman • • •There is indeed propaganda going on, but there is also a reality that many supply chains need conversion, and that money needs to come from somewhere. Not saying it is right, nor that it is unsolvable, just a reality. Most often, the smaller businesses are destroyed by expensive switches to new methods. Which is all we need, more megacorps owning everything.
In a world with functioning governments, processes, grants, tax breaks, and such could be set up to help companies switch.
Captain Aggravated
in reply to skuzz • • •Asphalt for pavement and shingles is amaong the most recycled materials on the planet.
Soap and shampoo can be made from animal fat or vegetable oil.
Hydrogen can be made from water. You get oxygen too.
These are not unsolveable problems.
skuzz
in reply to Captain Aggravated • • •SaveTheTuaHawk
in reply to Captain Aggravated • • •Not how you think. The asphalt is ground up for the mineral content then mixed with new bitumen.
Most of it is. Cheapest way to do it.
By wasting a lot of electricity.
UPGRAYEDD
in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk • • •Just curious, how is the majority of hydrogen produced/mined/farmed now?
I kinda always assumed it was electrolysis just because the process is so simple.
shane
in reply to UPGRAYEDD • • •Serinus
in reply to Captain Aggravated • • •WoodScientist
in reply to skuzz • • •forestbeasts
in reply to WoodScientist • • •Whoa, seriously? Okay that's awesome to know. And pretty cool.
-- Frost
JasonDJ
in reply to forestbeasts • • •I mean, yeah, lots of things are possible.
Whether or not they are economically feasible with current tech is a different question.
Given that oil-based fuel still exists, there's no reason for anybody to try to actually create a feasible, sustainable, scalable process to do such a thing.
MDCCCLV
in reply to skuzz • • •Doomsider
in reply to MDCCCLV • • •It was literally the byproduct of fuel production. They had to find uses for it and created the petrochemical revolution.
The issue was we already had ways of making all our products without petroleum byproducts. They also didn't cause cancer which is kind of nice.
merc
in reply to skuzz • • •Why?
I mean, I think it would be good, but why would they have to be looking into alternatives? Why couldn't we phase out fossil fuels for burning purposes, and then whenever that's done start thinking about phasing them out for use in other products?
bobzer
in reply to merc • • •Plastics are a waste product of converting oil to useful fuels. That's why they're so cheap and used in the most unbelievably wasteful ways. They'll remain inextricably linked. Fuel is expensive, plastics are incredibly cheap. If we ban the use of fossil fuels but still rely on oil based plastics, plastics will become very expensive and we'll still be creating the fuel. We'll just have a growing supply of worthless energy sitting around and decaying in storage.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea as I'm not an expert by any means, but to keep plastics for essential uses like in medicine will likely require a heavily subsidized plastic industry at least. But hey we already subsidize the fossil fuel industry directly and by externalizing the planet destroying effects of their use...
merc
in reply to bobzer • • •Which will mean people will switch to cheaper alternatives whenever possible.
skuzz
in reply to merc • • •MinnesotaGoddam
in reply to skuzz • • •berg
in reply to skuzz • • •gandalf_der_12te
in reply to skuzz • • •if i remember correctly, 97% of fossil fuels are actually used to generate energy from it, and only around 3% are used as material, i.e. turned into plastic and such.
technocrit
in reply to inari • • •electricyarn
in reply to technocrit • • •merc
in reply to electricyarn • • •humanspiral
in reply to inari • • •Also, the top energy reserves by company in the world are 5 Chinese silicon producers. 17 m² of high-efficiency solar panels (approx. 100-200 kg total) can produce the same amount of electricity in a year as one barrel of oil (135kg), and they will continue producing for 25+ years.
In these times, having solar is immunity from geopolitical extortion that applies to those dependent on feeding dinosaurs into their energy furnaces.
🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞
in reply to inari • • •In the US, we use a lot of prime farmland to grow corn that we turn into ethanol - 30,000,000 acres. Thirty million acres!
That ethanol is combined with gas (making the gas less efficient, by the way) and powers our cars in the US.
If you look at the number of miles the ethanol powers in the US, and calculate how many acres of solar we'd need to power electric cars to go that number of miles, we'd need to convert less than a quarter of a million of those acres to solar. So let's round up from 214,000 acres to the 250,000 because... inefficiencies, or whatever.
So we could gain 29,750,000 acres of land to grow more food or whatever and stop growing corn to turn into ethanol just to burn it in our cars.
For that matter, if we wanted to use that ethanol land (JUST the land we're using for ethanol) to power ALL cars in the US, switching everyone over to electric, it would only take about two million acres. Sure, 2,000,000 acres is a lot, but that would still be freeing up TWENTY EIGHT MILLION ACRES of land we're using JUST to grow corn we turn into ethanol.
It does ignore anything like the chaos of forcing everyone to buy a new electric car, setting that infrastructure up - I'm not saying this would be easy, but it is stunning how much land we could stop abusing to grow corn to burn in our cars.
SaveTheTuaHawk
in reply to 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞 • • •not actually true. This is oil and gas propaganda.
Most of the corn grown in the US is not edible. Barely 1.5%. Most of it is grown for sugars, oils and other industrial processes.
sakuraba
in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk • • •Homosexual sapiens
in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk • • •not actually true. This is oil and sugar propaganda.
Most of the corn grown in the US is grass. 100% of it, in fact. Soybeans make up a large percentage of animal feed.
mojofrododojo
in reply to Homosexual sapiens • • •....grass? you mean feed?
or do you mean maise technically being a grass, but having diverged greatly from it's original form via agricultural selection?
if that's the case, when you say most, what's the remainder then?
Homosexual sapiens
in reply to mojofrododojo • • •mojofrododojo
in reply to Homosexual sapiens • • •stabby_cicada
in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk • • •Bypassing the question of whether sugars and oils are edible (?), field corn is perfectly edible for humans. Field corn isn't sweet corn, and doesn't taste good as a vegetable. But we can eat it the same way most people throughout history have eaten corn - as a staple crop, as a grain like wheat, as corn flour, cornmeal, grits, parched corn, hominy, maza, etc, etc. We just choose not to.
And calling opposition to ethanol "oil and gas propaganda" is ridiculous. Like the comment you responded to point it out, ethanol is sold mixed with gasoline. The industries are synergistic, not competitive. They have a common interest in promoting internal combustion engine vehicles and opposing EVs.
Resonosity
in reply to 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞 • • •Mandating solar PV in all building codes nationwide, and incentivizing onshoring of all of the processes that go into manufacturing solar PV panels (including using trade protectionism practices such as tariffs AFTER WE ALREADY HAVE PROCESSING AND MANUFACTURING CAPABILITIES IN THE USA) will do wonders for helping average people transition away from fossil fuel Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) cars to EVs.
Many people who cry foul about EVs and renewables adding too much load to a grid that is too old and just can't handle it forget the main counter to disarm their arguments: colocating generation with utilization.
Having solar PV (and other renewable) generation closest to where that power wants to be used is the best for the grid infrastructure (maybe not the grid investors) because it reduces residential/commercial load while maintaining the needs of the original giga users of the grid: Industry.
There are solutions to SO many of today's problems. We just have politicians that are bought and sold by billionaires and their corporations who won't do the public's bidding. Voting progressive politicians in, and preferably ones who vocally claim they're Democratic Socialist or similar, is the strongest way we push back against Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Tech, and all the other mega industries.
merc
in reply to 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞 • • •🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞
in reply to merc • • •PokerChips
in reply to 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞 • • •If what you say is accurate, the other benefit would be that they wouldn't even need prime, fertile real estate.
They'd just need any space with good sun capture.
ToastedRavioli
in reply to PokerChips • • •Theres a lot of misunderstanding going on here about both corn and solar power.
Corn is not something that requires ideal or fertile real estate. People imagine corn being grown in the stereotypical midwestern river-adjacent and particularly fertile type of places, like Iowa or Ohio or whatever. The reality is that modern corn production requires a shitload of artificial nitrogen fertilization, so the actual fertility of the land is virtually unimportant. Believe it or not, Texas is actually one of the most productive places for corn farming, and in particularly hot and arid areas where you wouldnt be farming much else. More like typical ranching land, not prime farming land.
Now with solar power, at the current levels of efficiency (and unlike corn), having a cloudy day is a major killer. UV intensity at high elevation can be virtually nothing when it gets a little cloudy. Whereas on a sunny say it would be extremely high. So you need ideally somewhere that is as high altitude as possible, but where it is also sunny almost all the time. There are not a lot of places that meet that description, and even the few places that do are largely very expensive to acquire land in because people want to build houses and hotels and golf courses and whatever else in (or adjacent to) the mountains. Take Pueblo, CO, for example. It’s one of the solar hubs of the US. But its difficult to expand from there because you can either go east, down in elevation, and increase the number of cloudy days. Or you can try to go west and everything becomes exponentially more expensive the closer you get to the Rockies.
More importantly though, corn and solar production necessitate two completely different environments. No one is growing corn in Pueblo, and you wont find many solar fields in places where corn is grown effectively. Because a lot of the time people grow corn where it rains often, therefore those places have many more cloudy days in a year. Realistically you cant just take corn fields and turn them into solar fields
PokerChips
in reply to ToastedRavioli • • •If this is true then solar dominance would be very efficient for our society in your's and op's description because in this scenario, corn will still always be grown.. however, it would be marginalized to its regions that can only grow corn as you described.
I think that's what you was coveying.
plyth
in reply to 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞 • • •What if there is another potato famine, (added: another potato destroying mold)? That corn creates food security because it can always be used as food while the ethanol is replaced with petrol.
🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞
in reply to plyth • • •plyth
in reply to 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞 • • •🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞
in reply to plyth • • •Corn grown for ethanol would not help in a food shortage, so for the idea of a food shortage, it is.......... not helpful.
We have plenty of land not being used right now that could be used to grow food.
But we don't have a shortage of food. We have food being wasted and thrown away. We have plenty of excess food. This is like being worried about your driveway taking up valuable lawn space. It's...... not.
plyth
in reply to 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞 • • •Others have pointed out that it can be eaten as staple food.
Land doesn't help if there is no food.
A reserve is for out of ordinary situations.
🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞
in reply to plyth • • •You can also scour the ground for pennies just in case you run out of money, too. It'll technically bring in more money than you had before.
You could also keep a stash of aluminum cans to turn in for money as well in case you run out of money.
But the amounts of help these things would do is so incredibly minimal that there are much better uses of your time.
Yes. Technically. Growing less than one percent of the land we grow for ethanol corn would mean that extra less than one percent of corn we really don't want to eat JUST IN CASE we needed that last tiny bit.
We could also easily open far more than that in farmland and grow other crops that are more edible first.
But yes, technically, we could grow food we neither want nor need.
Are you happy now?
plyth
in reply to 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞 • • •I am sorry but I am not happy.
It was 30%.It could be used otherwise if we used elecrric cars but that wouldn't create food security.
Well, not starving to death is a reasonable cause to do something.
Then there is other surplus food that has to be thrown away, or also be turned into ethanol.
For food it's worth having a surplus. The bad part is that food is turned into ethanol while people starve to death.
🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞
in reply to plyth • • •We do not fucking need that land for food. There is no shortage of food. Nobody is fucking starving due to a lack of food. There is a lack of distribution, yes. But not a fucking lack of food.
Furthermore, converting 250k acres of that corn that we are NOT FUCKING EATING BECAUSE IT IS BEING USED FOR ETHANOL into solar that powers cars instead would ALLOW US TO GAIN ALMOST 30,000,000 ACRES OF LAND TO GROW FOOD.
Food that we do not fucking need in the first place.
Jesus fucking christ.
Have a nice day. I'm done. Goodbye.
plyth
in reply to 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞 • • •simultaneous disruption of key food-growing regions
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)zbyte64
in reply to plyth • • •plyth
in reply to zbyte64 • • •I meant to say that the problem could be another potato destroing mold. The famine could be avoided by switching to ethanol corn.
Not growing that corn would lead to the same result as exporting it.
catdog
in reply to inari • • •Some ships would carry ammonia, hydrogen, etc.
Still better than the status quo.
UPGRAYEDD
in reply to catdog • • •mojofrododojo
in reply to catdog • • •there's already a movement to change over to ammonia for fueling shipping. I don't have a good feel for the benefits and drawbacks but it is out there.
news.mit.edu/2025/unlocking-am…
Unlocking ammonia as a fuel source for heavy industry
MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technologycatdog
in reply to mojofrododojo • • •mojofrododojo
in reply to catdog • • •sounds awfully good. almost too good.
ugh
MisterD
in reply to catdog • • •catdog
in reply to MisterD • • •Offshore wind and onshore solar excess can be used to produce hydrogen, not coal.
It takes extra steps and introduces inefficiencies, but it is able to store larger amounts of energy than batteries, and can be used in certain industrial processes which do not run on wires and electrons.
In a succesfully electrified world, it is likely that some ammonia and hydrogen is shipped around the world for such use cases. The main alternative is to keep using fossils.
glibg
in reply to inari • • •merc
in reply to glibg • • •Stupidmanager
in reply to glibg • • •sin_free_for_00_days
in reply to Stupidmanager • • •TigerAce
in reply to inari • • •GreenKnight23
in reply to TigerAce • • •not just that but that's millions of jobs worldwide lost.
had we started moving to renewables 40 years ago, like we should have, the impact wouldn't be as bad now.
potpotato
in reply to GreenKnight23 • • •NocturnalMorning
in reply to GreenKnight23 • • •GreenKnight23
in reply to NocturnalMorning • • •let's assume worldwide shipping creates enough jobs for 1% of the world's population. that's 70,000,000 jobs.
if half of those jobs (35,000,000) just poofed out overnight, what would be the global climate impacts after 6-8 months?
I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be positive.
edit: sorry, didn't realize I was on a slrpnk instance where emotions outrank logic.
NocturnalMorning
in reply to GreenKnight23 • • •We lived for millions of years without jobs. We'd be fine. In fact, We'd replace those jobs with jobs in renewable energy sectors.
Its insane to me that people argue that we should continue accelerating climate change which will kill far more people and cost more money than what we would make addressing and mitigation it.
But that would get in the way of your dumbass argument wouldn't it?
ziproot
in reply to GreenKnight23 • • •Doomsider
in reply to TigerAce • • •ziproot
in reply to TigerAce • • •Not wind with sodium ion batteries.
EDIT: Source
EDIT: This comment is based on outdated information (see the below thread). A growing number of wind turbines are switching from electromagnets to permanent magnets, the latter of which use rare earth minerals. You could still make wind turbines with electromagnets, but that does likely give countries with rare earth minerals a competitive advantage.
TigerAce
in reply to ziproot • • •What is the generator made of?
Batteries aren't an energy source but a storage.
ziproot
in reply to TigerAce • • •Here is a more direct link.
Apprently my information is outdated. For a long time, wind turbines used electromagnets (the fact check is from 2016), but it looks like they are starting to use permanent magnets now (which require rare earths). They still don’t need them, and I think a lot of the ones using permanent magnets are from countries which have rare earths, but I will update my initial comment since I don’t want to move the goalposts.
In any case, there is a commenter above that mentioned solar, which according to my link does not need rare earth minerals.
I think the world bank report is a good read, regardless.
Fluffy Kitty Cat
in reply to ziproot • • •MinnesotaGoddam
in reply to inari • • •gandalf_der_12te
in reply to MinnesotaGoddam • • •MinnesotaGoddam
in reply to gandalf_der_12te • • •quick_snail
in reply to inari • • •Stupidmanager
in reply to inari • • •Look, you’re not thinking about the shareholders. I NEED YOU to think about the shareholders! How will they ever make their billions? You selfish bastard!
/s just in case.
GreenShimada
in reply to inari • • •like this
super_user_do likes this.
Vinylraupe
in reply to GreenShimada • • •fuck_u_spez_in_particular
in reply to Vinylraupe • • •GreenShimada
in reply to Vinylraupe • • •UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to GreenShimada • • •It's the rocket ship problem.
You need fuel to move the fuel that moves the fuel that moves the rocket
GreenShimada
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to GreenShimada • • •Do you mean railways?
GreenShimada
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •No.
Here, let me DDG two words for you: enrx.com/en/Induction-Applicat…
ENRX | Wireless charging for dynamic electric roadways
www.enrx.comDeckPacker
in reply to GreenShimada • • •This would be incredibly energy inefficient first of all, because a lit of energy gets lost when using induction and that rises really quickly with the distance from the source.
Second of all, that would be really expensive to build.
Third of all, this doesn't solve the real problem of individualized travel. Cars are really inefficient, becuase: 1. Their infrastructure wastes a lot of space. Most people travel alone in their cars, which means, you have all this sourounding machinery you need to transport in addition, which is huge. Cars get into traffic jams, so the city decides to widen the rode. This moves the whole city further appart, which means people need the car more often, which means there are more traffic jams.
2. They are hugely energy inefficient, because (as said before), you need to move the whole car around just to transport one person
3. They are the most dangerous mode of travel and most often endanger bike drivers or pedestrians.
4. They are loud and stink
You could solve most of these problems with proper public transport. These "futuristic" ideas, like inductive roads or Musks Hyperloop are just a way for big companies to direct funding and attention away from public transport.
GreenShimada
in reply to DeckPacker • • •OK, well there's a lot of engineers and scientists that you'll have to find and explain how wrong they are. I wasn't inventing induction roadways in my head, they're a real thing and showing a lot of success for use cases like the trucking industry and use on highways where cars travel at speed most of the time.
If we could power vehicles on negativity and dismissiveness of electrifying fossil fuel infrastructure until everyone got the exact solution they wanted, we could all drive to the moon and back.
insideevs.com/news/777157/wire…
prima.ca/en/project/inductive-…
enrx.com/en/Company/Media/News…
en.newsroom.vinci-concessions.…
sciencedirect.com/science/arti…
newatlas.com/automotive/electr…
Promising results for dynamic wireless charging in real-world road tests
Paul Ridden (New Atlas)DeckPacker
in reply to GreenShimada • • •The thing is, we already have the solution though. It's public transport. Railways can also be used to transport cargo. For longer routes you can still use ships.
Your solution is the unrealistic one. Because we would have to invest an insane amount of money into that infrastructure. We could invest a fraction if that into public transport and we would be so much better off.
I don't care how many scientists agree with you. Just think critically for like 10 seconds about this. How would this really improve anything over public transport?
Also there are a lot if scientists agreeing with me, so...
GreenShimada
in reply to DeckPacker • • •I think you're assuming everyone lives in an urban setting or a developed Western European country where trains are already present. That is not the case for a significant number of people, like it or not. it is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and certainly not a bridge to ease people off of fossil fuels.
My parents live 2 hours from a large city, and 30 miles outside of a small town, the last 2 miles of which are a dirt road. What, exactly, form of public transport should I take from the airport to their house? A series of busses and then walk 2 miles? How would THEY get to the store? How should they buy and get food to their small farm? On a bus?
Since you're awake, you're likely in the same time zone as I am, or close enough. Are there not isolated villages and communities where you live where 100 or fewer people aren't worth a bus going by every 45 minutes, just in case?
bstix
in reply to inari • • •julianwgs
in reply to inari • • •eyes
in reply to julianwgs • • •silence7
in reply to julianwgs • • •foggianism
in reply to inari • • •UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to inari • • •silence7
in reply to inari • • •maplesaga
in reply to inari • • •zbyte64
in reply to maplesaga • • •maplesaga
in reply to zbyte64 • • •matlag
in reply to maplesaga • • •China is actually one of the very few countries meeting its commitments so far. They're even a bit ahead of schedule: renewable and nuclear power plants, fleet electrification (cars and trucks, plus advanced railways), planting large forests, etc.
Granted that won't be sufficient, they should do more and faster, and they now see coming issues with the degradation of their soils and their water resources. But during that same time period, western countries rolled back environment policies and came back on their promises, going further and further away from adverting a catastrophe.
zbyte64
in reply to maplesaga • • •maplesaga
in reply to zbyte64 • • •zbyte64
in reply to maplesaga • • •Coleslaw4145
in reply to inari • • •Not to mention all the fossil fuel used to build the ships in the first place.
There's a lot of fossil fuel burned before that steel arrives at the shipyard.
SpiceDealer
in reply to inari • • •Ferroto
in reply to inari • • •Burn oil to pump oil
Burn oil to refine oil
Burn oil to ship oil
So we can burn oil at home.
m3t00🌎🇺🇦
in reply to Ferroto • • •cook oil to make plastic/chemicals
dump plastic/chemicals in the ocean
ɔiƚoxɘup
in reply to m3t00🌎🇺🇦 • • •sciencedaily.com/releases/2025…
Plastic-eating bacteria discovered in the ocean
ScienceDailym3t00🌎🇺🇦
in reply to inari • • •