The cynic in me thinks it's actually to encourage new hardware upgrades.
no need to be genius to just increase blocksize 1000x and "assume" gigabit connection which no one has.
Lightning network is a great idea, in theory, in practice however it will just not work for the problem you mentioned - no one is interested in providing this kind of liquidity.
As of why need blockchain at all - is because 1st layer is the court and guarantees you to own money from the channel. You just don't have to ask court for every coffee payment (i.e. broadcast to every single laptop in the world).
Or put another way, the total economic value of all exported almonds from California is about $3.5 to $4 billion. The water use is about on par with the entire city of Los Angeles for that almond export crop. The metro area of LA has a trillion dollar economy by comparison (250+ fold larger than the almond exports). That's an economically irrational imbalance.
The obvious question becomes: is that what California wants to do with its scarce water resources, export large parts of it at an extremely low value basis? At some point in the near future it's likely some hard choices will need to be made, including whether to invest extremely large sums of money into more desalination plans or to begin restricting the most voracious water consumers (cattle are another one, although I'm unsure of their export ratios).
The earth will be a red Giant in about 5 billion years and fry the earth anyway
However, the paradigm shift is inevitable, once discovered, people will use it, and use it anywhere possible.
One of the many reasons I remain childfree.
The main reason why the language I am envisioning is not a functional language is because Idris, Liquid haskell, ... have already explored many of the related ideas. I want to take ideas from them and bring it into an imperative language as that hasn't been as well explored.
Also as a liberal arts in programming, Euler, is fun in the sense of a well done proof is fun in math. If that is your thing you'll enjoy Euler, otherwise as in most programming you will brute force your way to a solution.
This arbitrage relationship is about as hard they get, so trading futures is tantamount to trading the underlying asset itself, since changes in price in the futures market will be translated directly via arbitrage into changes in price in the spot market for the underlying asset, and vice versa.
Anyway, you did raise a good question, althoug focused on the core.
I have a similar concern with the immediate extraction. We know that there is plenty of water underground we can relie on for many years - critical for drought seasons, but underground overuse (or called ungerground depletion) can lead to a number of environmental problems such as land subsidence.
The extraction must be done at a reasonable depth below the surface, but what is the rate of the heat influx reaching this depth? Would we deplete this energy before wr can replenish? Is this even a concern?
Furthermote, if you look at Wikipedia, there are a number of environment concerns. Although pollution is far less than what is generated by burning fossil fuel, nonetheless, careful design and location are required.
By domain knowledge how to do this securely in implementations tested oer time, do you mean something like https://access.redhat.com/articles/2161461?
It doesn't look like systemd's resolver fares worse in comparison... In addition it can be sandboxed (and is), an advantage over having a resolver part of libc.
Bitcoin is extremely early stage technology. It'll take years for a bunch of scaling developments and blocksize is just a temporary measure.
R studio already has vim key bindings, so trying to make vim into rstudio-like seems like spending time on the wrong problem. As in, even if you succeed beyond your wildest dreams you're still not going to compete with R studio.
Things that make Rstudio great that is not so easy to implement include the knitR integration and Rmarkdown integration and embedded graphs and most importantly Rstudio server.