Hacker Read

ArkyBeagle · 2016-03-28 17:37:32+00:00

It aggregates it rather than manufacture it. It's really something.

psychphysic | karma 3174 | avg karma 2.4 · | 2023-08-01 02:43:13

I meant in the abstract sense. They seem to be able to make the stuff with albeit with a very poor yield.

dragonwriter | karma 118260 | avg karma 2.17 · | 2017-09-27 17:27:29+00:00

> It's the only advancement where making a million copies of an item takes a few minutes and no raw material.

And, mire directly to the point, doesn't require additional labor inputs. (If extraction is automated by software tools driving hardware, even things that demand raw materials can have this feature.)

reply

soco | karma 3886 | avg karma 1.63 · | 2022-06-10 08:05:37

Most other industries produce something also without being wasteful-as-feature.

pfdietz | karma 12357 | avg karma 1.45 · | 2021-10-28 06:12:16

If they meant not much is produced, that can hardly be an objection to its use, as it's always possible to scale up production.

ifesdjeen | karma 451 | avg karma 4.9 · | 2010-10-06 07:33:08+00:00

Does it work that well for production for you? Really, that's extremely interesting.

TeMPOraL | karma 106045 | avg karma 3.04 · | 2020-09-14 04:41:24

Not if it gets produced and transported (slightly) faster than it's broken down.

oh_sigh | karma 6383 | avg karma 0.89 · | 2016-10-05 06:11:05+00:00

It's valuable exactly because all of it in the world only makes a cube 67 feet on a side. Compared that to, say steel production, where the world has produced a cube 1900' on each side. And that was just in 2015.

jbverschoor | karma 6661 | avg karma 1.64 · | 2024-01-01 09:16:56

Amen. very true..

"Processes" are for factories. Diluting is good for factories, cogs.

For some type of 'creationary' work, it's also fine.

reply

tehwebguy | karma 7795 | avg karma 3.53 · | 2022-11-03 04:22:36

Plus with literally hundreds of millions of dollars in profits there’s no problem doing some “industrial process“

ncmncm | karma 13951 | avg karma 1.02 · | 2022-09-07 05:18:22

The article is specifically about an efficient process to produce it at point of use, so it need not be stored.

swombat | karma 44155 | avg karma 6.85 · | 2012-04-30 14:01:35+00:00

Sounds more valuable to keep those costly materials up there, but bunch them together so they can be used as raw materials to build those automated factories?

philipov | karma 5318 | avg karma 3.01 · | 2023-06-09 07:25:27

Maybe there's a benefit to not needing to spend the energy or raw materials needed to synthesize something yourself? The large amounts needed might reflect that outsourcing the production is inefficient.

Arrath | karma 4968 | avg karma 2.47 · | 2023-06-26 17:32:10

This discovery does make sense. I wonder how well it will scale to production, is it as simple as ensuring that this ~2% differing binder material is homogenized throughout the mix?

gameswithgo | karma 10455 | avg karma 3.71 · | 2019-06-24 14:00:28

It doesn't matter how much physically comes from there to here, it matters how much their production brings down the price of the global commodity.

scotth | karma 1108 | avg karma 2.31 · | 2020-08-23 02:59:07+00:00

Maximize resource collection and manufacturing? Surely there's usefulness in raw materials.

appdrag | karma 90 | avg karma 1.43 · | 2018-02-07 18:52:20+00:00

Very interesting! Have you used it at big scale for production or not yet?

jddj | karma 2058 | avg karma 2.91 · | 2023-10-01 13:59:13

Not an insignificant amount, the construction industry for example extracts quite a bit

lcall | karma 404 | avg karma 0.55 · | 2020-03-06 17:08:01+00:00

Either way, the seemingly (and prospective) increased actual production is what impresses me, as an illustration of a private-sector solution.

akvadrako | karma 5693 | avg karma 1.65 · | 2018-07-28 10:32:41+00:00

Besides the environmental impact, local production also means more decentralized. That lower coupling is important for stability when there's a downturn, war or catastrophe.