Another solution then: automatically download/cache a user’s most frequently played tracks. I know downloading is a premium feature or whatever but they should consider it if it would save them money.

What’s not clear to me is whether these edits will be passed on to future generations of trees. I think that’s usually not the case with CRISPR, but this article is talking about “breeding”, so maybe it is the case here. The phrase “building a better forest” is particularly disturbing as well.

My concern here is basically that we don’t want to be replacing wild forests with genetically engineered monoculture. Replacing millions of years of evolution and biodiversity with 1 or 2 “optimal” genetic lines leaves the population vulnerable to things like disease and environmental changes. A diverse population is much more resilient against these dangers, since the differences in individuals may allow some to survive where others couldn’t.

So as long as the usage is limited to specific tree farms, it’s probably no worse than other modern agricultural practices. I just hope they don’t want to replace wild forests with CRISPR trees.

These technologies to capture small amounts of “leftover” energy are neat, but the problem is that by definition you will never get as much out of them as you would from “bulk” energy sources. Often you end up spending more effort/tech/materials for a smaller output, so you’re just better off building more solar panels and investing in some storage for cloudy days.

If there happens to be some cheap easy solution to get little pieces of energy here and there, then sure, why not? But it’s not going to fill the gap, and it’s not worth spending major effort on for a small return.