🙄

No, because it devalues their click through, as no sales will result from those clicks.

It’s kinda like printing money, there’s more of it, but the overall value hasn’t increased.

Couple of issues I’m wondering about…

First, wouldn’t clicking on everything just make you easier to track?

Second, how much bandwidth would all this use?

It’s weird being almost a day ahead of most Lemmy users, it’s 3pm on the 2nd over here.

I’d hope there are severe penalties for abusing the process.

Well, that’s somewhat reassuring.

Still reprehensible that it’s being used that way, of course.

I almost respect you for taking a stance so blatantly against what most people believe.

Almost.

What the fuck is AI being trained on to produce the stuff?

Not relevant when you own the machine.

Most of what our liquid fuels are used for currently can be done by electric vehicles, it will be tasks like farm equipment, and vehicles and equipment working in remote areas, that will still require liquid fuels.

There is a lot of biofuel being made of other fuel types though, so no reason why production of aviation biofuel can’t ramp up.

If you’re selling your house, the real estate agent will take photos of the house from every angle, the only reason to be on street view is to look at the rest of the neighborhood.

I don’t believe it would lower the value of the property by any significant amount.

This is the first one I thought of, someone who may not even be interested in your property will look at that, and wonder what you’re hiding.

You can also run an aircraft on biofuel with little to no modifications, with none of the downsides of hydrogen.

Yes, but hydrogen has significantly more flaws than most other options. It’s been around for 50 years, has never been a commercial success, and just inherently kinda sucks.

Subsidising an inherently flawed technology isn’t the way to go.

It’s more that Hydrogen is an inherently shit way of powering a vehicle, and liquid fuels are much easier to store and transport.

Biofuels are a much better option, in my view.

Airbus explained that it ran the numbers and found that, while it could build a successful hydrogen airliner, the plane would be successful in the same way that Concorde was successful. In other words, a technological triumph, but a commercial failure.

Just like any other hydrogen powered… Anything.

Probably being sarcastic, but you can’t be certain unfortunately.

Yeah, but if you’re in the US, you’d be more concerned about the US authorities.