As of 2023, solar energy accounted for about 4.5% of China’s total energy consumption.

In 2024 solar energy could account for around 5-6% of China’s total energy consumption.

If they add another 170GW in 2025, the percentage could rise to approximately 6-7%.

They hope by 2026 solar will make up 8-9% of the total energy consumption.

If solar is the future then we are screwed because that isn’t fast enough growth… and that is without factoring in the rest of the world who will hit nowhere near those numbers.

Whilst it’s true solar is growing, it is not likely to be the silver bullet you make out.

Another way to look at the source you linked is that despite the ongoing climate catastrophe the US is still planning to add 4% more fossil fuel sources to their grid next year.

It also leaves out the fact that 84% of the current US power is generated by fossil fuels and that figure is not being reduced.

The source is also very US-centric. If we take the IEA’s projections, only 25% of the world’s new energy will be from renewable sources in 2024.

Then there’s the weird choice of counting battery storage as energy generation. At the end of 2022 half of the battery storage was being powered by fossil fuels so should probably be left out of any statistics.

We need people to understand the true scale of the problem rather than generating more hopium. The energy companies have teams of people for that.

Me: Here’s the URL for the web service I’ve just deployed. I’ve set up users and permissions so just copy it into your browser and you should see a very similar system to what you’ve been trained on with all your data in there.

Customer: All I’m getting is a blank screen.

Much panicking and headscratching later…

Me: Waaaiiiiittt, did you press Return/Go after copying the URL?

Customer: That was not in the instructions.

The scientific method itself considers any as yet unsubstantiated theory as hypothesis. Applying this to the idea of God would leave one agnostic on the issue.

A couple of prominent examples of religious dogmas disproved by scientific discoveries are the Copernican Revolution and evolution by means of natural selection.

So apparently I have a similar contorted expression to my mother when eating sour food.

My father always referred to this as my mother’s-maiden-name-gene. Let’s say her maiden name was Chaplin, he would say “Ah there’s that Chaplin gene again!”

Being young I misunderstood this as a verb, ie. I was “chaplinging”.

Cut to first year of school where I proudly waltz around informing any classmates eating fizzy sweets that the correct and proper term for their reaction is “chaplinging”. It was a few years until the penny dropped.

Nah it’s just SFA with extra steps.

So if all world leaders collectively agreed to put aside their differences, ditch capitalism and mobilise their entire populations to actively work to reduce emissions tomorrow we might stand a slim chance of preventing the worst case scenario…

It’s just a bit of a pointless distinction. No atheist could claim they know for sure.

I don’t think it is possible to prove a deity exists, but I’m fully open to the prospect of being wrong.

Sounds like straight up atheism to me…

As an atheist who would fully accept the existence of a deity if any form of rigorous proof was provided, these boxes are dumb.

How does one “lean” agnostic?

It’s not a strawman argument, I’ll let you pick any imaginary creature you please.

Mind if I take some of your income to fund my unicorn sanctuary instead of improving tangible public services?

Now that you mention it, I’m not entirely convinced it is a fully coherent belief in its own right, more of a lack of wanting to enter the debate or a subcategory of atheism.

Shall we try it with unicorns? Unicorn believer says they saw a unicorn.

Atheist viewpoint would say something along the lines of “To persuade me they exist I’d need to see one in the flesh or at the very least a full anatomical breakdown of how their magical properties work with corroboration from other unicorn enthusiasts.”

The agnostic standpoint is what exactly? “We can’t know whether unicorns exist or not so there’s no point discussing it.”?

No they don’t and agnosticism isn’t an upgrade, it’s just sitting on the fence.

Most athiests are agnostic to some degree and vice versa.

The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim.

Logic and reasoning preferably with scientific evidence.

Slay the Spire for improving risk analysis skills.

David, is that you?!

I expected it to be difficult with a possibility of not enjoying it but seemed pretty popular so thought I’d give it a go.

Will give your suggestions a shot but I find everything about it obtuse to be honest. To me good game design lowers you gently into mastering the controls and ramping up difficulty, not just chucking you in at the deep end with confusing menus so it’s on the player to look everything up.

Weirdly I like Guitar Hero, but think that’s mainly down to enjoying the songs and playing with friends. Scraping through Cliffs of Dover on expert was enough Eden Ring for me lol.

Yeah think you’re right, I like fast-paced games where I can enter flow state quicker and I never was one for grinding up a skill tree in order to progress unless the grinding itself is fun/fluid.

I prefer actively attacking enemies with a bit of running away and dodging where required as opposed to patiently dodging waiting for an opening to attack.

Thanks for the offer, I would have taken you up on that, unfortunately I have it on Xbox, not PC.