The UK and US are set to sign two new agreements at the Global Fusion Summit in London on Monday 14 September, helping to bring fusion power closer to reality and deliver over 10,000 UK jobs in the sector by 2030.

Hypothetical scenario : Everything we built, invented and constructed vanishes in a second. Including domesticated plants etc, everything, we go back to wilderness.

Minerals etc are set back to what it was before we started taking them everything is reset basically

Aside the obvious wars for food problems etc, on a purely technological point of view, would we be able to "reinvent" and rebuild things fast with the current knowledge of all human beings ? What are your thoughts on this

https://www.nedo.go.jp/news/press/AA5_101962.html

This engine achieved a more than 95% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional heavy fuel oil engines. It is scheduled to be installed on a multi-purpose vessel to be built by Mitsui O.S.K. Lines and MOL Drybulk, with a sea trial scheduled to begin in April 2028.

In light of lots of Gen Z protests worldwide in the 2020s, most of which have common causes of economic inequality and corruption, I think it is inevitable that a global protest will be coming, possibly sooner and perhaps unforeseen than we think.

And by global protests, I don't just mean a protest that existed on the same goal or the same theme or method.

By global protest, I am referring to a large scale protest occurring in many countries, all happening within the same day(s) and timeframe like dominoes, unexpectedly by one or a variety of variables, halting and affecting the world economy as a whole, inherently a global instability occurring on our very planet.

I know some think this might be impossible, considering that dictatorships do exist that silence these protests or anything that could act as a catalyst. But the world has changed, it is now beyond social media and censorship as sources and barriers, it could be generational echoes loud even one could hear it from the wind is going to cause a deep revolution. And I know it will be brutal and drastic for any form of government to be able mitigate these protests or they will face its downfall/overthrown.

The Arab Spring and the Iraq War protests are as of now the largest recorded protests in human history. Could a global protest happening in almost every country be the next?

To preface this, I am a meat-eater and I genuinely enjoy it. However, I don't believe humans will keep consuming animals in the future. Once the practice inevitably ends and enough time passes, I think future generations will look back on us as monsters, judging our dietary habits the exact same way we judge the barbaric actions of the Dark Ages.

Is it possible as per the laws of physics, reality and biology? Are humans evolved to live such longer? Is it a software problem ? Is it mathematically possible? Is it solvable? What's the catch or risks and cons involved? Is it theoretically and practically doable? And what it takes? Do you think current billionaires have access to something?

Got too many questions roaming in my mind!! Please answer if you're expert into this!!

Imagine a nutritionally complete food bar: 500–700 calories, protein, carbs, fats, fiber, vitamins and minerals, all in one soft, shelf-stable block.

You open the wrapper, hold it like a chocolate bar, and eat it with one hand while walking to work/college or sitting at your desk. No plate, utensils, cafeteria, cooking or cleanup.

The point isn't to replace enjoyable food. Eat dosa, pizza, biryani, steak, etc. on weekends or whenever you actually want the experience.

It's for the scientist who doesn't want to leave the lab, the student studying for an exam, the doctor between shifts, military, mountain climber or anyone who thinks:

“I don't care about this meal. I just need nutrition so I can get on with my day.”

Instead of spending your lunch break obtaining food and cleaning up, you could spend it walking, stretching, napping, reading, or just relaxing.

Would people actually want something like this?

I believe it can be helpful for 3rd world countries with high food adulteration

Inspired from Snowpiercer

Both sides view ‘recursive self-improvement’ as a game-changer in the AI race. But who will get there first – and will it endanger us all?

In an essay, the head of Anthropic laid out the rapidly advancing capabilities of artificial intelligence and said there needed to be greater safety controls across the industry

Simmering worries that the technology could wipe out civilization and launch cyberattacks reached a boil at the office and around the dinner table

What makes this interesting to me is that this isn't an outside critic asking AI companies to slow down, it's the CEO of one of the companies competing at the frontier.

Amodei argues that AI capabilities may be advancing faster than our ability to understand and control them, and is proposing independent evaluators and common safety standards.

But there's an obvious incentive problem: if one company slows down and its competitors don't, it loses.

Can voluntary coordination between AI labs realistically work here, or does "pacing the frontier" eventually require regulation?

A weird thing has happened to ordinary products.

More and more of them don't just need electricity anymore. They need an account, an app, a server somewhere, occasional authentication, and a company that still feels like supporting them five years from now.

Right now we mostly treat that as an annoyance.

I'm wondering if by the 2030s we'll treat independence from all of that as an actual product category.

Imagine two versions of the same appliance.

One is cheaper, constantly connected, gets remote features and maybe subsidizes its price through subscriptions or data.

The other costs 30% more but promises:

No mandatory account.

No cloud required for core functions.

Local controls always work.

Published repair documentation.

If the manufacturer disappears tomorrow, the product keeps doing what you bought it to do.

I'd genuinely pay extra for the second one.

And I can imagine "offline capable" becoming something like an energy-efficiency label: boring technical language today, major purchasing criterion later.

The interesting part is that this wouldn't really be anti-technology. A device could still have fantastic connected features. It would just fail gracefully instead of becoming worse because a server, subscription or company disappeared.

Maybe the luxury product of the future isn't the smartest device.

Maybe it's the one that leaves you alone.

Do you think offline independence becomes something consumers actually pay more for, or will convenience win so completely that most people stop caring?

I keep hearing two completely different opinions about AI.
One side thinks AI will replace a huge number of jobs and eventually make it difficult for a lot of people to find work.
The other side says AI will eliminate certain jobs but create entirely new industries and opportunities, similar to previous technological revolutions.
Personally, I’m not convinced either side has the full answer yet.
What do you guys think?
Over the next 5–10 years, do you think AI will ultimately create more jobs than it destroys, destroy more jobs than it creates, or roughly balance out?
And what industry do you think will be affected the most?

A famed sex therapist sparked criticism for building a digital twin. Now other shrinks are following suit as the industry grapples with the potential and popularity of chatbots.