Which specifically formulated problems does all that computation solve, again?

They don't have to be decided at all. That's why it's smart to avoid them.

The roadmap defines 3 milestone batteries. The first is released, it's a benchtop device that you can relatively easily build on your own. It has an electrode side of 2 x 2cm2. It does not store any significant amount of energy. The second one is being developed right now, it has a cell the size of a small 3d printer bed (20x20cm) and will also not store practical amounts of energy. It will hopefully prove though that they are on the right track and that they can scale it up. The third battery only will store significant amounts of energy but in only due end of the year (probably later). Current Vanadium systems cost approx. 300-600$/kWh according to some random website I found. The goal of this project is to spread the knowledge about Redox Flow Batteries and in the medium term only make them commercially viable. The aniolyth and catholyth are based on the Zink-Iodine system in an aqueous solution. There are a bunch of other systems though, each with their trade offs. The anode and cathode are both graphite felt in the case of the dev kit.

I just can't get over how little we hear from academics RE: AI. It shows a clear disinterest and I feel like if they did bother to say anything it would be, "Proceed with caution while we study this further." Instead it's always the giant corporations with vested interest in this technology succeeding. It's just so painfully transparent.

I really want to know the name of the contractor who made that proposal.

Clear copyright over reach. News titles or tiny excerpts should not copyrightable - that's just idiotic. If thag stops readers from reading your article then it was never good enough to begin with.

My ports are on the front of the router. No backdoors for me, checkmate Atheists.