Ok, well at least they put the comma in the right place. But I definitely read that wrong the first time anyway.

"But how could it feed from a brown dwarf that far away?

…

Oh, I see."

Yeah, this makes some intuitive sense too. If you’re drinking something hot enough to actually kill cells, you’ll need to replace cells more frequently. More cell replication means more chances for cancer to occur.

If only cancer were like that…

So let me get this straight. In searching for a shipwreck they accidentally found… a shipwreck cargo container.

Wow, this really is dark and twisted. I wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes…

Actually, you make a really valid point, but it’s leading me to an unfortunate conclusion.

If bacteria was developed that could break down plastics and did actually break free to start digesting plastic in the wild, that would really clean up the earth, for maybe 10 years. But then the manufacturers would start using “more durable” materials, they’d slightly change their plastic chemistry to resist these microbes and we’ll be in the same boat we’re in now, where plastics don’t break down.

Because the thing is, one of our primary uses for plastic is when we want a material that won’t rot or rust, so breaking down defeats is purpose. We want plastic to not break down, so our products continue to work longer. But we also want plastic to break down, to not pollute our environment. These two goals are completely at odds with each other. The result is, and I now 100% believe this, we will never really have bacteria that breaks down plastic, long lasting plastic waste is a product of our own desire for “quality” products.

You just need “Chemical X”

https://youtu.be/PlpUABjD_p0

No, I said remote…

Yeah but tell me about this tool for Plex remote streaming…

Care to elaborate? (As again, that’s the actual point of the thread)

Sure, for as long as fuel lasts.

Well you’re treating this as a logistical engineering question. We’re not at that point, this is a manner of energy generation that only becomes necessary after a trillion years, after all the stars have burned out, after all the available hydrogen in the galaxy has been burned up in fusion reactions. How to build and maintain this system is definitely a problem for someone else, many years from now.

Also, you say this wouldn’t be possible without spacecraft advances like warp drive… But over this incredible time frame, you really don’t need any magical advance in spacecraft. Over the course of a trillion years, at the rate it’s going now, the Voyager spacecraft will have traveled over 50 million light years (that distance is about 500 times the diameter of the Milky Way). So, we can travel the distances needed to do this over the truly, epically, astonishingly immense timeframe available.

But more to the point, this is a theoretical question, a question about the nature of the universe. This isn’t really a logistical question. We’re not asking “how” one could do it, we’re asking “if” one could do it. Or, what aspect of physics, if any, precludes this from ever being viable?

I understand why people are reacting badly to these being described as “brighter,” but it does also mean “more energy efficient for the same brightness.”

Exactly, it’s all relative. What “brighter” really means in this context is more energy converted to light, less energy wasted to heat - which is entirely a good thing.