Did you try qbz? https://github.com/vicrodh/qbz. It works quite well, except Qobuz Connect (ability to control other Qobuz players) doesn’t work, and seems like it will never work.
You'll also need to cut the power to power supplies if you want to save every watt. For example, my desktop computer (display et al. not included) takes 2.2 W sleeping, and 1.7 W powered off.
With 10 cents per kilowatt, 2.2 W costs 0.00022 whole units of money per hour. 10 hours of sleep would come to cost 0.803 whole units of money per year.
Formula: 2.2 W * (0.1 M/kWh / 1000) * 10 h * 365, where M is some currency of money.
Think about it like this. The Fedora project is the upstream, community distro of Red Hat® Enterprise Linux. Red Hat is the project’s primary sponsor, but thousands of independent developers also contribute to the Fedora project. Each of these contributors, including Red Hat, bring their own new ideas to be tested and debated for inclusion by the larger community into Fedora Linux. This also makes Fedora an ideal place for Red Hat to put features through its own distinct set of tests and quality assurance processes, and those features eventually get incorporated into a version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
That is true. But, I would call this a dangerous bill. If it passes, it can have huge implications for different types of computers. I think it's good to raise awareness for this type of things, but maybe using less clickbaity titles would be a better way.
If a manufacturer wants to sell a 3d-printer in California, they would need to have the printer approved. The bill basically requires 3d-printer to be locked down, meaning closed source firmware and other closed source software. When ever you want to print something, the printer needs to query some service on the internet to check if it's allowed to print the file.
The video is about a new bill, California AB-2047, which would require all 3D-printers sold or traded in California to have technology that prevents it from printing firearms. It also requires that 3D-printers cannot be easily modified to print firearms. This basically means that 3D-printers sold in California cannot have open source firmware, and they cannot work with open source tools, like slicers.
He argues, that while this bill is about 3D-printers, it opens the door for further limiting your devices. Computers are general purpose devices, that are able to execute any code, as long as it's valid code. He argues that this bill is a way to change that. He also argues, that while this bill is only about California, it can easily spread to other states and countries.
The rest is my thoughts:
It's commonly thought, that it's impossible to make a computer that's not a general purpose device (a non-Turing complete machine). The only way to do that is by making it illegal to run certain kind of programs. You can compare this bill to DMCA law. It was originally meant to make it illegal to pirate music, movies, games, etc. But, nowadays, it's used for numerous other things. You can't use any type of ink you want in your 2d-printers. You have to pay a monthly fee to be able to heat your car's seats. You can't repair your devices with third-party parts.
So yes, the title of the video is a bit clickbaity. But I think the content is still valid.
Here's a short answer: For a hundred-year time span, "diverting up to 1.7% of the flights could reduce the total EF by 35.6%. The reduction in total EF is contributed almost entirely by the reduction in contrail EF, while the change in the CO2 EF as a result of a diversion appears to be negligible."
Long answer:
In that study, they created an algorithm that would divert flights vertically if they are going to create a large contrail, and if diversion is possible (the new airspace isn't already in use). The algorithm chooses a flight path that has the best total energy forcing (EF). They then applied that algorithm for 6 one-week periods of recorded data. Those weeks were spread around the year.
From "Supporting Information" of that research report (the main text isn't freely available):
To compare the climate forcing of contrails and CO2 emissions, the absolute global warming potential (AGWP), the time integral of the [radiative forcing] of CO2 over time, is used as a first-order approximation to quantify the CO2 EF and total EF (contrails plus CO2)
Although approximately 25% of the emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere after a millennium, we applied the 100-year [time horizon] to be in line with the Kyoto Protocol, and assumed that the AGWP is normally distributed in the Monte Carlo simulation
For the six weeks of data, diverting up to 1.7% of the flights could reduce the total EF by 35.6% [...]. The reduction in total EF is contributed almost entirely by the reduction in contrail EF, while the change in the CO2 EF as a result of a diversion appears to be negligible.
If an AGWP of a longer [time horizon] of 1000 years [...] is used to quantify the EF of CO2, this sensitivity analysis suggest that the overall reduction in the total EF will be significantly smaller at 12.2% [...]. In contrast, the total EF could be reduced by up to 50.1% [...] if a shorter [time horizon] of 20-years [...] is used.
While the potential changes in the global mean surface temperature, quantified using the Absolute Global Temperature Potential (AGTP) are also important, we have refrained from quantifying it because the current level of scientific understanding remains low.
Even when considering a thousand-year time span, diverting the flights still has a positive effect. And we can always play with the idea that mankind figures out a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, which would make those numbers for shorter time spans more meaningful.
According to this one study [1] that focused on Japanese airspace, 2.2% of the flights causes 80% of all contrail energy forcing (EF).
A small-scale strategy of selectively diverting 1.7% of the fleet could reduce the contrail EF by up to 59.3% [52.4, 65.6%], with only a 0.014% [0.010, 0.017%] increase in total fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. A low-risk strategy of diverting flights only if there is no fuel penalty, thereby avoiding additional long-lived CO2 emissions, would reduce contrail EF by 20.0% [17.4, 23.0%].
The re-routing can simply be achieved by changing the flight elevation by 2000 feet one or the other direction.
[1] Teoh, Roger et al. “Mitigating the Climate Forcing of Aircraft Contrails by Small-Scale Diversions and Technology Adoption.” Environmental science & technology vol. 54,5 (2020): 2941-2950. doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b05608
Speaking with my limited knowledge, there apparently are cooling contrails and warming contrails, but the warming ones are more common. I don't know why or when the contrails are cooling or warming.
According to him, the contrails have very potent effect on global warming. Apparently, contrails from just one year's flights has almost the same effect as all the CO2 emitted by all flights ever. Re-routing extends the flight by only so much, so the added CO2 emission has negligible effect.
That YouTube Short seems to be a valid one. It's by someone who (according to his own words) has a PhD in atmospheric physics. Basically, he says that contrails causes global warming by preventing heat from escaping from Earth, and that contrails are mostly only formed when a plane flies through a cold humid patch. By simply re-routing planes around these cold patches, the contrails could be reduced.
Bancomat, Bizum, SIBS-MB WAY and Vipps MobilePay (all of which are members of the EuroPA Alliance) and EPI Company (EPI) jointly announce today the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), marking a decisive step towards strengthening Europe’s payment sovereignty.
At launch, the initiative will span 13 European countries[1], collectively already covering ~72% of the European Union and Norway population. The coalition is open to all European countries, including Switzerland and other non-euro markets
Following the MoU, the partners will establish the central interoperability entity by H1 2026, will start preparing the technical implementation of the target set-up, and conduct proof‑of‑concepts (PoCs) in parallel.
Coverage of all use cases is intented by 2027 through a phased rollout:
In 2026: rollout of peer-to-peer (P2P) cross-border payments
In 2027: rollout of e-commerce and point-of-sale (POS) payments
[1] Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.
Did you try qbz? https://github.com/vicrodh/qbz. It works quite well, except Qobuz Connect (ability to control other Qobuz players) doesn’t work, and seems like it will never work.
Also, the Qobuz Windows app works quite well with Wine, but requires some tinkering. https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=42813