That is a link to a press release. As best as I can tell from other sources, they started shipping some high end, low volume models the next year that added a separate 48V curcuit in addition to the 12V. Color me impressed...
> What is the alternative? If no policy should be based on science, then what? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? Shamans? Prayers? Goat sacrifices?
I'm afraid you're lacking imagination. Also, the irony of these being historical examples rather than made up seems to be lost on you. Humans are strange.
On a more serious note, if you were interested in what a modern society looks like that is no longer guided by science, you could study Russia. It seems a cynical blend of religion, nationalism, and imperialism is what it is. I'm not advocating for this, I'm describing what it looks like.
>> 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good.
> You really need to elaborate here.
I specifically prefaced it with "as underwriter of political projects". Over that time, the #1 influence on policy has been economics, and besides covid all of the most pressing issues today are economic: Stagnation, deindustrialization, inequaliy, and inflation. People are asking, if policy over that period was built on such solid scientific foundation, how come we've ended up here?
Several things that really truck me with this comment:
> consensus science from 50+ years of research and medical practice [...] being questioned
This is precisely what scientists should have been doing! I'm afraid having your work done for you by unqualified amateurs is a kind of punishment for skimping on it for too long.
> a background of "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter"
This is essentially a class-ist argument: Someone who tells dirty jokes on netflix couldn't possibly, by the essence of their being, decide for themselves which scientist to talk to. What's particularly striking is that this comes after the author seemingly accepts the parent's premise that academia is borken. What I'm hearing is "Yeah, we haven't earned your trust, but at least we're not those people". This is not a winning argument, and certainly not a scientific one.
> We're in a world were people think that Bill Gates is inserting microchips into people and that Covid is a hoax by the world government and no one has died
This too seems heavily influnced by class. When people believe "Bill Gates is inserting microchips" they are factually wrong but tentatively right. They are powerless in politics, while oligarchs, including foreign ones, have outsized influence. Wild conspiracies are how these feelings find expression in those that have no other way of doing so. By taking everything literal ("no, Bill Gates is not literally inserting microchips"), their enemies can avoid dealing with the issues a more charitable interpretation would be getting at.
> don't loose faith in science
To the extent that science is used as the underwriter of various political projects, I think people are perfectly fine losing faith in it. 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good, so what's the point? On the other hand, I'm not worried that people will stop using material science... By and large mistrust is very well placed.
Well, until there's a better way to have some kind of token or currency, blockchains will be part of web3. Lack of incentives is why the first wave of open protocol design fizzled out, which is why they're so important this time around.
The way it's shaping up, improper or overzealous incentives will be the undoing of the second wave, but that movie has yet to play out.
BTC is not web3. It has no role to play beyond being a slightly upscale dog coin for day traders to lose money on. in fact, it can't play a role as it is technically not possible and its core constituency refuses to make any changes.