MartianSands

They should last indefinitely so long as the process of accretion which created these nodules keeps going. A battery becomes drained when the chemical interaction between the two metals uses up all the available metal, which happens quite fast in our modern batteries because we've designed them that way.

We've made them powerful and cheap by using relatively small amounts of each metal, spread thin and sandwiched together. The downside is that those things films of metal get used up fast.

These nodules, meanwhile, are lumps of metal. They won't produce lots of power all at once, but they can generate small amounts for ages, and so long as they grow faster than the metal gets used up (it doesn't actually go anywhere, it just changes chemically) they'll keep going

I know that for two reasons: first, we already know that oxygen concentration in the deep ocean is generally pretty low compared to the surface, and second we can already account for the general composition of our atmosphere. There just isn't a big chunk of mystery oxygen who's source we can't identify.

While it's not impossible that we're mistaken and a bunch of it is coming from somewhere other than where we expect, it's sufficiently unlikely that I'm comfortable making such statements I told and unless presented with evidence to the contrary.

The article is being pretty hyperbolic. There's no mystery here, this is just something which happens if you put two different metals together. It's nothing more or less than a crude battery, just like the ancestors of the AA battery the article kept harping on about.

This discovery could be important for people studying the climate on very early Earth, people studying early life, and the ecology of the deep sea today.

That last one is particularly troubling, though. If this is widespread, then this might be a major source of what little oxygen is down there. If so, then taking those nodules away (like a lot of people are keen to do, since some of the metals they're made of are valuable) could destroy an entire ecosystem.

More research is required

We can, it's just electrolysis. All you need is electricity, and these nodules are simply batteries.

We're not short of oxygen up here though, so it's not terribly useful. We could get hydrogen that way, which would be greener than the way we get it at industrial scale now, but it would be way more expensive

That's deeply unwise. Nothing you cobble together yourself using a raspberry pi is going to be up to automotive safety standards.

Anyone who sets up one of these has nobody but themselves to blame when it misbehaves and gives them incorrect information, or no information, or starts flickering distractingly, and they get done for speeding/hit a pedestrian/fail whatever inspections the law requires in their part of the world

Even that wouldn't prove anything. You have to start a whole new conversation (ideally on a separate account so that OpenAI can't play any clever games to make it look smarter than it is) and ask it there. Without doing that, the model will still have the context in which you told it to begin with

I was about to dismiss that out of hand, presuming you just didn't know the film, but I think you're right. His face is too wide, and the hairline doesn't match the original footage.

I'm simultaneously impressed by a pretty slick edit, and bewildered that anyone would put in the effort

Edit: and now I look like an idiot, because OP swapped the gif for a original. I swear guys, it was uncanny

They haven't hijacked that, it's their turn to chair it. The core members of that council take turns to do that.

You do realise that the key reason for that council to exist is so that nuclear armed powers talk to each other, right? However much we may disapprove of Russia's wartime policies, the council is doing its job so long as there's neutral ground where everyone else can talk to them about it rather than getting itchy trigger fingers

Because you might accidentally do something which breaks the system, or you might run a program which does something malicious without your knowledge.

By gating dangerous (or protected for any other reason) commands behind sudo, you create a barrier which is difficult to accidentally cross

True, I didn't consider that. He'd still have to convince them though, which would be easier said than done if he wanted to entirely disregard the constitution

No. The ruling seems to have said that he can do anything he likes in his capacity as president, and he can't be convicted of any criminal offence for it. It didn't say that the people around him would have to go along with it, or that they'd be immune from prosecution.

It also left convenient wriggle room for the court to arbitrarily decide what constituted "official" actions, rather than him doing something privately, so they've effectively granted themselves a get out of jail free card to decide case-by-case in the future

Systems like that can easily be difficult or impossible to test on the ground, because they aren't strong enough to work under gravity. They might need to be in free-fall to survive being deployed