And wait, no you’re thinking of a different thread. This thread mentioned no such thing.

They can connect to open WiFi spots and just ignore the fact that you didn’t connect it.

Depends on the signature.

You can use your router or access point tools to check what address it’s trying to resolve and then set up a redirect to a device that can respond with a fake response.

If you are at a business you should have an access point or router that is capable of blocking specific devices from WAN access. But I would create a new segmented network, block that network from WAN access entirely, put it on its own VLAN, and then connect the TV to that network.

That doesn’t, unless you’ve blocked your TV from network access, because they use ACR - Automated Content Recognition - that literally scans what is being displayed over your hdmi port and then sells it off to advertisers.

Same for ours, but we think it’s cause she learned we’d go get it even if she didn’t.

So, once again you are incapable of explaining how it’s not carbon neutral, though you think you are. Carbon neutrality has nothing to do with development costs and construction costs are almost always dwarfed by running costs (which I literally mentioned if you would bother reading).

You’re just angry it’s not a miracle machine.

I’m not the one getting angry. You are making a bunch of bullshit claims and then getting mad that people don’t believe your lies.

We switched to symmetrical gigabit the moment it was available, in fact we were one of the first in the state. I’m never going back. In 5 years we’ve only had to call for help once and they didn’t need to come out to do anything. They were able to fix the issue over the phone in about 5-10 minutes. The rest of the time the internet just fucking works.

Amazing how offering a working product gets you customers.

There are lots of claims going around, but the physics just isn’t there. Battery storage density isn’t high enough currently (and doesn’t look to be close) to support large planes. It’s the same problem as with 18 wheelers. The larger the vehicle, the battery size increases superlinearly, not linearly. Because adding in battery storage increases the weight required to carry the vehicle, thus increasing the battery storage needs, thus … and so on. With liquid fuel, the weight is variable based on the passengers, and the weight drops as the flight continues, thus increasing fuel efficiency the more weight is lost.

No I’m asking you to explain how it’s not carbon neutral. I do not give one shit about the cost, I do not give one shit about how much the gas it produces costs (for reference the Porsche plant is at over $40 a LITER). You have stated it’s not carbon neutral. Explain how. If the machine does what it says then it is carbon neutral.

I have an electric car, I do not care about this machine. But I do care when people claim something and have zero evidence to back it up.

Sure thing. Thanks for having a nice thoughtful discussion with me.

I also normally don’t care, but my wife does. She thinks about it this way and won’t sing or dance in front of people really.

Please do explain how it’s wrong. Go on, I’ll wait.

If you could link that it would be great. As far as I understand it, a commercial passenger plane (which holds several hundred people) is no where close to being possible. If you are talking about small planes that hold maximum ten-15 people then sure.

The efficiency doesn’t matter (to a point of manufacturing solar cells, or wind turbines, or whatever your equipment is for your renewable energy source). If all of the gasoline is generated from the air using renewable energy, it could take 100x the energy and still be completely carbon neutral. Carbon neutrality is based on the amount of excess carbon added to the air. If no carbon is added then by definition it’s carbon neutral.

Porsche already has a factory in Chile that is doing this exact same thing at a much larger scale.

I agree that they can be a hobby. Like you might speed walk in races or something. But that’s the exception. I believe what OP is trying to say is that some things have been transformed from being human into a skill that people are expected to be good at to participate in. If you’re not good at singing, people don’t want to hear it. If you’re not good at dancing, people don’t want to see it. Etc.

The particulate matter won’t occur in a hydrocarbon that is generated, that comes from imperfect processing of crude. If you pull the carbon directly out of the air there are no particulates.

But yes it will still be carbon neutral. No additional carbon will be released back into the atmosphere.

No they do exist! But most scientists agree that we are unlikely to ever see commercial airliners using it, nor will freight liners use it. We would have to see ENORMOUS scientific improvements and many many many things that seem incredibly far fetched invented to get to that point.

If 99.9% of people on the planet do it, it’s not a hobby. It’s a behavior.

But 99.9% of people on the planet do know how to walk. If people don’t have special awareness, then doing more walking isn’t gonna help that.