this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
367 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

73066 readers
2223 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] zod000@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 day ago

I'm surprised they had to outsource that as they have been producing so much shit for decades.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I thought the billion dollars of excrement they bought was OpenAI

self-five 🙏 ohhhhhh

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

You're off by a factory of 13x

[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 5 points 22 hours ago

I always said it. Micro$oft is full of shit

[–] mazzilius_marsti@lemmy.world 45 points 2 days ago (2 children)

so the AI stuff causes too much CO2, instead of fixing their own hardware, the best they could do is to offset that CO2 amount by burying shit?

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

It's poetic... MS AI slings out massive amounts of shit and now the company gets to bury some of it to compensate

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yes, burying fertilizer traps biomass CO2 and then they can use that as carbon credit equivalent to claim CO² neutrality.
Of course, there's a reason why fertilizer is an inexpensive source of fixated carbon biomass and this means all fertilizer will increase in price by the amount value of it's CO2 carbon credit equivalent

Then maybe the buried fertilizer will become so valuable that it can be dug out and sold as fertilizer again.

I don't see any problems with this plan !

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Then maybe the buried fertilizer will become so valuable that it can be dug out and sold as fertilizer again.

I don't see any problems with this plan !

except the part the planet may be uninhabitable for humans by then due to the massive CO2 we are spewing to get slop from AI...

other than that, no problem at all

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sure, sure but !

“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

Then maybe the buried fertilizer will become so valuable that it can be dug out and sold as fertilizer again.

Between the methane that generates and easily obtained phosphorous trapped down there, that's strictly a matter of time, unfortunately.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemmy.zip 54 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Tecnowashing is also fraud.

Take a failed concept like the gold standard, technowash it, and you get crypto scamcoins.

Greenwashing, sportswashing (saudi arabia), sanewashing (presenting insane ideas as debatable ideas, like debating human rights with someone who is against human rights ends up sanewashing the anti-rights position), small business washing (using ostensibly a pro small business argument to push a fortune 100 agenda), worker washing (treat workers like shit in private but make pro worker noises in public), gender washing (the politician with an anti-woman agenda is a woman so it's OK), minority washing (a fascist pundit is a minority that fascism often targets, so fascism is OK now). Now we can add tecnowashing to the list.

Another example of technowashing is when a real estate company presents itself as a tech startup to inflate its valuation.

All this washing has exploded in recent years.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 57 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Apart from the questionable practice of buying CO2 credits (or whatever the practice is called), pumping shit underground does not seem like the best way to save the ecosphere. It could've produced energy and/or useful products in various ways but oh no, that would have been too expensive.

This prevents it from being dumped at a waste disposal site, where it would eventually decompose and release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

This is the only reason this practice is deemed carbon-emission-friendly. Color me skeptical.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My first thought was...how is this a good thing, we get a lot of our water from ground water...and now we're pumping toxic shit into the ground. The fuck

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Devil's advocate says: 5000 ft is probably below groundwater level. But tbh idk. Hell, they could even use spent oil reservoirs.

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

use spent oil reservoirs

Ok, that lead to some giggles thinking about some company drilling in the future thinking they were about to hit a strangely untapped oil field.

Add a hundred years of methane pressure build up and that could be really interesting gusher.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Watching Landman or you just familiar with the lingo?

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 1 points 23 hours ago

Oh, was I using the correct lingo for hundred year old methane powered shit gushers? I had no idea. Lol!

[–] felixwhynot@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Meanwhile I’m out here pooping for free like a chump!

[–] villainy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime. That's why I poop on company time.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 108 points 2 days ago (5 children)

to offset AI carbon emissions

Does it actually do that?

[–] justsomeguy@lemmy.world 75 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's usually nonsense. I remember some carbon offsets being a guy owning a forest and essentially selling his inaction as a carbon offset. Give me a million dollars so I don't chop all those trees down which I totally would've done otherwise. It's just pushing numbers around on a spreadsheet.

In this case I can imagine their calculations being wildly off. How much CO2/methane does a ton of poop actually release? How much CO2 is released to transport that ton and build the facilities that hold it?

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 43 points 2 days ago

There's even worse stuff: Planting trees is sold as carbon offset. But where do you plant trees? Certainly not on valuable farmland. Instead they drain bogs to plant trees instead.

The issue is that bogs can store about 10x as much CO² as a forest can, and by draining the bog, that CO² is released.

And bog land isn't exactly well-suited for growing trees, and also the carbon offset only pays for planting the trees, not for keeping them alive. So the trees die almost instantly, thus releasing their stored CO². But the upside to it is that on the now re-deforested land, more trees can be planted.

It's complete greenwashing with at best no effect and at worst terrible effects.

The main issue with planting trees to remove CO² is that a forest doesn't consume CO² but instead just stores it. Once a forest is fully-grown, no more CO² is sunk in there. A hectare of forest stores ~400t CO2. Germany creates about 650 million tons CO² per year. So to offset that, Germany would need to plant 1.6 million hectars of forest a year, which is about 4.5% of the surface area of Germany. 32% of Germany is already forest, so that leaves a theoretical maximum of 14.5 years of CO² emissions that Germany could offset by planting trees.

But Germany has been creating CO² for much longer.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ik5pvx@lemmy.world 83 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In the eyes of the board of directors, sure . Plantings a billion worth of trees would probably have been too green

[–] Saprophyte@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago

Technically it's more common to pay investment firms with forest land to not cut down the trees they weren't going to cut down to begin with.

[–] ook@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 2 days ago

No. Carbon offsetting is a scam and does not do shit for the environment.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Some poop releases methane, a much worse greenhouse gas than Co2.

Fun fact, when striking oil, you often encounter methane pockets as well, the gas is commonly just burned in a giant flare, this is mainly done for safety, to prevent gas from accumulating on the ground and risking an explosion, but also far reduce the greenhouse effect of the gas.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 49 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

We truly are in the metaverse era.

They found a way to convert physical shit into virtual shit.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago

And vice versa!

[–] Hupf@feddit.org 21 points 2 days ago

Can't make this shit up.

[–] 6nk06@sh.itjust.works 64 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Microsoft buys back all the crap they sold us for years.

[–] justsomeguy@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

Microsoft burying the steaming pile of poop that is teams will be enough to "offset" all their data centers.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

But that's fertilizer! WTF?

It's also precious cheap carbon credit, don't worry it will only increase world wide fertilize costs by the value of the carbon credits but thing of all the methane they can burn to make electricity.

It's like converting our fertilizer directly into electricity, except its carbon sequestered 5000 feet under ground !

Maybe the fertilizer prices will increase so much it will become worththile to dig that 5000 feet mine and get that fertilizer back in the bio carbon cycle in 30 years when fertilizer costs more than aluminium does today !

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 30 points 2 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

"To reach the golden temple you and your companions must first pass through the vast Caverns of Corruption."

[–] rycee@lemmy.world 36 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What about the nutrients in the waste? Why not compost it, capture the methane offgassing, and store that?

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 34 points 2 days ago (5 children)

using human waste as fertilizer isn't a good idea.

human waste contains everything that a person has consumes. this includes disease causing pathogens and parasites.

if it were to be used as a fertilizer it would need to go through multiple stages of expensive processing and testing to ensure safety. it's far more cost effective and safer to use food by-product like fish cuttings to create fertilizers.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 38 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Engineer here. We arent talking about directly tossing it on fields. We are talking about having it be anaerobically fermented at high temperatures for about 30 days, with the biogas captured and used for energy.

the new thing to do then is burn the remains and recover the phosphate from the ashes, where certainly no biological threat remains

These type of plants are currently built on many larger wastewater treatment plants in Europe

[–] kinther@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm curious how much phosphate we would be able to capture with this method?

I know it is a critical resource we are flushing away daily and -SHOULD- be doing this. Just like peak oil there is a concept of peak phosphorous.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 8 points 2 days ago

In the EU recovering phosphor from wastewater could cover about one third of the EU countries total phosphor demands.

This is why the EU made tge strategic decision to have such recovery systems developed and built.

[–] rycee@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Treated waste water sludge is very commonly used here in Sweden albeit using anaerobic digestion rather than regular composting. High temperature composting would kill any pathogens so you can absolutely get permission to use a composting waste system in small scales. For larger scale waste treatment it is with anaerobic digestion, as mentioned.

The captured methane is typically used for fuel, e.g., in public transport.

As far as I know the sludge used for fertilizer needs to be certified under something called REVAQ. Some controversy does exist surrounding safe levels of the various harmful substances and perhaps PFAS in particular.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Not to forget: It contains a ton of medicine as well. If you want to have antibiotics in your salad, use human waste as fertilizers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Pathogens are less of a problem, they die off before they cannot infect a plant. But chemicals from medication and contraceptives, as well as heavy metals, are.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] uservoid1@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago

So this is what they plan to do with all the game studios they bought over the years.

[–] axEl7fB5@lemmy.cafe 7 points 2 days ago

Fight shit with shit.

How many turds can you buy for a billion dollars. . ?

[–] frazw@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

Idiots!! That stuff ain't worth shit!

[–] middlemanSI@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

When the planet burns down, the will be the ones who "did something about it"

load more comments
view more: next ›