I think intelligence is just something too complex to summarise in a single number. Any attempt to do so will always either have big flaws and biases, or be too broad to be meaningful.

I’d consider it equivalent to trying to put a number on how “skilled” someone is. Like, skilled at what? What skills are you going to test and how are you going to balance them?
Different types of intelligence are more abstract than different skills but I think it’s as meaningless to try to express the whole thing with a single number.

And I’m saying this as someone who’s recently diagnosed with an IQ of 138 (had to do an IQ test as a part of a job application), which is above average, so I’m not saying this because I’m salty about my own IQ score.

I think with how current economics work it could also be useful to fine all shareholders when a company commits a crime. Ideally fines in percentage of the current stock value, and perhaps even in two parts, half applied immediately to affect all current shareholders, and the other half applied a week or so later to maximise panic-selling and make the stocks undesirable to force stock prices to make a nosedive.

It’s often mostly shareholders that actively push for enshittification, and they often don’t feel any of the financial consequences of fines on companies as long as the line still goes up. So if you fine in a way that shareholders are negatively affected and stock prices (which is what holds most of the wealth of many shareholders) to plummet then I think that’d be much more effective.

Though jailing CEOs for crimes of their company would still be effective for private companies (though they seem to participate a lot less in enshittification as they focus on long-term strategies instead of maximising quarterly growth above all else). For public companies a CEO is often mostly just a scapegoat for the decisions made by the board of directors and shareholders.

It’s the renewables on the grid that have to make a difference. If you’re powering an electric car purely out of electricity generated with fossil fuels you’re effectively building a series hybrid with extra steps, with the combustion engine being outside of the vehicle. Or I guess you could also compare it to a diesel-electric locomotive with the generator outside the vehicle, which he also explained in the video would not be good for efficiency. And yes at the scale of power plants you can do some things more efficient, but it’s not actually that much as the efficiency is mostly limited by similar thermodynamic processes than that happen inside an engine. A typical coal power plant also has an efficiency of 30-40% (so effectively a mediocre coal plant is similar in efficiency to a very efficient engine, and yes, some new ones can reach higher efficiencies, but the vast majority still use an old design, at least around here). But when you get the energy from a power plant you still have distribution losses on the grid, conversion losses when charging the battery and again when discharging the battery, and the efficiency losses in the electric motor, while you do not have grid losses and charging/discharging losses and losses in an electric motor with a combination engine is directly driving the wheels.

That’s why it’s important to keep investing in renewables. You indeed don’t need a whole lot of renewables to offset the efficiency losses of the battery and distribution, but you do need at least some of it. And you also should not just look at the grid as a whole, but at how the additional load of charging the vehicle gets handled. If all renewables on the grid are operating at maximum capacity all the time, and there is a coal plant that is used to burn extra coal when extra capacity is needed, then any additional load can be considered to be running on pure coal power even if the grid contains many renewable sources. But if you live in a neighbourhood where there is a constant overproduction of solar power while the grid and can charge your car at times of overproduction, then you effectively charge your car with fully green energy even if the grid contains a lot of fossil fuel plants.

You can consider electric cars to be the infrastructure that enables the transport sector to become more green, but we do also need to actively increase energy generations via green sources to actually make use of that “infrastructure”. Though I guess there is also some good news: Powering an electric car from exclusively fossil fuel energy sources puts the efficiency of the full chain somewhere between regular cars and hybrids. So it should at least never be worse than driving a regular car. Worst case it’s just equivalent. But it does need investments in green energy sources as the demand on electricity increases to become significantly better.

I think the “80% after 1000 cycles” isn’t ambitious enough. 1000 cycles is still very easy to reach, and some phones already barely last a full day when new so even that 20% lost capacity can really degrade the experience. I’d argue that it’s not even an ambitious target at all, as even bog standard lithium ion batteries are frequently rated for that lifespan or more.

I could understand it if they had an exception for potential future technologies that would be pretty much guaranteed to outlast the useful lifespan of the device (such as solid-state batteries which could in theory last for tens of thousands of cycles and thus last for decades, if it is ever able to leave the lab). But as it is now with the unambitious goal of 1000 cycles so many batteries will be exempt by default that I don’t think it’ll change much.

Blue light is visible, so emitting more or less blue light Alters how colours are perceived on the display. That’s also why enabling the blue light filter makes the screen look yellow.
Screens calibrated for the same colour temperature and wilth equal brightness should emit the same amount of blue light regardless of which display technology they use.