Yes. Someone has been trying real hard to make AI-gen Harrypotter Scifi happen. It’s not going to happen.

An artificial intelligence designed to the task could, but

You are absolutely right to be skeptical. There are a great many downsides to this technology. Getting it grimy, pointing it out of the sky, cloud cover, etc. will nullify any cooling effect. And yes, the DIY preparation shown would be completely destroyed by a powerwasher, or even a moderate storm. That said, I read recently of a university of maryland research team made an improved coating, allowing the nanospheres to withstand significantly increased weathering while still remaining effective.

What’s this? Did you rehost it so we dont give google the traffic?

deleted by creator

we puttin clickbait in titles now. everyone is just okay with that i guess.

Others have said it before me, just chiming in to add my support. I’ve been there, it sucked, it took a long time, but I’m (pretty much, probably) over it.

Under very specific circumstances, this technology really can reduce surface temperatures by up to the claimed 3.5C. The first I heard of this technology was on Tech Ingredients’ channel about a year ago, where they go into very specific detail about how it works. Since then, I’ve seen Nighthawkinlight attempt to refine the material by producing consistent nanospheres. You could make the stuff yourself, they tell you how.

To be absolutely clear, I’m not knocking these inventors, who have found a novel incremental advance in this technology (they made the technology more durable so it wears in the weather better) I’m saying the article is bad and the author should feel bad. “Unlike previous attempts at cooling coatings…” does more than suggest that those “attempts” were somehow unsuccessful at being a cooling coating, especially when taken with unequivocal claims to unique “invention.” It reads like an ad or propaganda, which of course it is. Daniela Benites is the Communications Coordinator for the University of Maryland School of Engineering, and the author of this article. You’ll never guess where these two researchers/scientists/inventors/students/whateversoundsbestinthearticleatthetime go to school.

This article is a fluff piece of grossly overstated popsci which does a poor job of explaining how the “new technology” works. (some major disadvantages: being almost useless on cars, actually useless in the shade or on any surface that doesn’t point directly into space, and useless when obstructed by clouds) It isn’t new, it isn’t magic, and these guys didn’t invent it. They found a new material/production method, but they don’t get any credit for inventing what is basically reflective paint. Standard science “journalism” stuff, not surprised you doubted it.

Don’t worry about all that though, there’s a handy little popup that says the article is totally trustworthy: We are assured this is a “fact-checked, peer-reviewed publication” from a “trusted source” and has been “proofread.”

I admit, it does sound like propaganda. No doubt the actual reasons were more personal.

I don’t remember where I read it, but I read that the board was unhappy with altman aggressively pursuing investment to the detriment of the stated mission of AI safety and free-and-open access.

Fix back button from posts going back twice instead of once

OH IT WAS A BUG! I thought I was taking crazy pills!

It started to affect someone’s bottom line.

Don’t worry. Stick with me, I’ll teach you all the pedantry you need to trick some idiot’s pants off.

That’s figuratively what eat the rich means.

You’re really giving me the “your subjective opinions about music are wrong” huh? Lol

… did you read it?

I downvoted it for being an obviously biased propaganda piece.

deleted by creator

Tell me more about your prejudices

what a dumb opinion lol