None of the points you make are wrong, it’s just a lot more uphill for hydrogen looking at the total picture. With almost every issue there is a way forward for hydrogen, but EVs are already significantly farther along the curve. It’s hard to overcome that kind of snowballing. Only time will tell!
It is great tech, but there are serious downsides too.
storage and handling: Hydrogen is a tiny atom, so it leaks like nobody’s business. Even liquid hydrogen is terribly low-density which makes pretty much a hard limit on storage density, unlike battery tech which can at least hypothetically dramatically improve. Pressure vessels suck. They have to be crazy sturdy and roughly spherical which places major design limitations on vehicles that use them.
distribution: EVs can limp by on sparse fast charging stations and home charging while better infrastructure builds out. Electrical supply is already ubiquitous. Who’s going to want a hydrogen vehicle (which you can absolutely already buy, nobody’s stopping you in the US at least) with so few fueling options? The upfront investment to bootstrap a market with hydrogen stations to the point of even competing with crappy EV charging is enormous.
no onboard energy recovery: Regenerative braking is an incredible benefit on its own.
industry synergy: EV manufacture benefits from tons of other industries investing in battery tech. The tide lifts all boats.
There are solutions as with any tech, but the transition picture with hydrogen is a lot lot worse than EVs. The least worst option tends to win.
So if 401ks are bad because they incentivize gambling, what’s the alternative? You have a uselessly broad definition that seems to lead people only to a guarantee of losing purchasing power through inflation. Better guarantee a loss than “gamble” with strong evidence to support your risk I see.
Saying “the house always wins” about things like index investing is hilarious.
On the other hand, Cherenkov radiatiation is only indirectly related to criticality. It comes from any particle moving through a medium, generally water, faster than light travels through that medium. A luminous sonic boom of sorts! It’s associated with criticality because those are the contexts where it happens often enough to actually be visible.
It’s not an assumption, I understand the risks. I know it will go both up and down. That doesn’t make it gambling. What on earth isn’t gambling in your eyes?
Oxygen ravages electrons all day at the end of the electron transport chain and nobody bats an eye, but you steal one pair off some DNA and everybody loses their minds!
There’s no mention of anything like zero-days in that article. They only mention that it can target all major OSes, with no mention of cutting edge versions also being vulnerable.
Hilariously, the article directly supports my position as well:
The good news for some, at least: it likely poses a minimal threat to most people, considering the multi-million-dollar price tag and other requirements for developing a surveillance campaign using Sherlock
That’s a big part of my whole point. People who don’t do even a modicum of actual thought about a practical threat model for themselves love pretending that ad blocking isn’t primarily just about not wanting to see ads.
If Israel or some other highly capable attacker is coming after you, then fine, you really do need ad blocking. In that case malware in ads is going to be the least of your concerns.
Attacks that cast such a wide net as to be the concern of all web users are necessarily less dangerous because exploits need to be kept secret to avoid being patched.
There’s nothing wrong with taking extra precautions; I’m certainly not saying blocking ads is a bad idea. It’s the apparent confusion that an informed, tech-savvy person might choose not to block ads that makes me laugh.