The revolution in electric flying is that you can use a large amount of very small engines, to the point where you can turn your entire control surface into a mass of tiny engines, allowing for significant aerodynamic advances.
I would expect the energy losses to bearings for lots of little shafts from lots of little engines to be overwhelming compared to those two or three larger engines with one shaft each.
Efficiency of fans goes waaaay down as the impeller size shrinks, and the noise goes waaay up. Think about the fans in your computer. I would expect the same principles apply when you scale up to airplane-size fans. Not only that, with a leading-edge composed of fans you now have guaranteed non-laminar flow over your lifting surface. I would be quite surprised to learn that non-laminar lifting surfaces will be efficient and good stall-avoidance.
Finally, if turboprop is really the idea here, you now need to be able to control the pitch of lots of propellers. If there are 10 times as many propellers, that's 10 times as many things to break in critical systems. Doesn't sound like a good design corner to me.
Except we know how to handle jet fuel very, very safely, now. Extraordinarily safely. It also has a nice characteristic of not being explosive (or even combustible, really) in liquid form. We don't have jet fuel or gasoline spontaneously igniting under normal operations.
Compare with lithium batteries that are not yet to the same standard of safety. We see lithium batteries spontaneously ignite under normal operations pretty frequently still. That isn't to say that we won't figure out safe lithium battery operations, but we aren't quite there, yet.
33 hours a year in traffic jams on average? If you make 10 trips a week for 50 weeks that's 500 trips per year. 33 hours / 500 trips is abou 4 minutes per trip stuck in traffic. That's "some of the worst traffic in the world"?
From the linked article, which rather paints a very different picture than the one suggested by the summary and questioned by our AC (emphasis in bold added):
How much time a year do Luxembourgers spend stuck in traffic jams?
With 33 hours, Luxembourg City ranks 134th in the world out of more than 1,000 cities analysed.
22-02-2017
According to a study published recently by the American company Inrix, drivers in Luxembourg City spent an average of 33 hours in traffic jams in 2016. This result puts Luxembourg City in 134th place. Esch-sur-Alzette, another town in the Grand Duchy included in the study, fares better, with just 21 hours spent stuck in traffic jams. It ranks 350th on the list.
To draw up its ranking, Inrix analysed the road traffic situation in 1,064 towns in 38 different countries. Inrix accumulated 500 terabytes of data from 300 million different sources, covering 8 million kilometres of roads. International competition
Compared with the major cities at the top of the list, the cliché of Luxembourg City as a congested capital clogged by its road traffic needs to be moderated. In comparison, for example, the inhabitants of the city of Los Angeles spent 104.1 hours in traffic jams, the inhabitants of Moscow 91.4 hours, and New Yorkers 89.4 hours.
In Europe, the ranking is led by the major cities in Russia. That does not mean that the big cities of western Europe are unencumbered. Londoners spend an average of 73.4 hours in traffic jams, while Parisians manage to waste 65.3 hours.
Overall, cities close to the Grand Duchy fared rather better than Luxembourg City. Metz is in 944th place, with 6.6 hours of traffic jams. Thionville is in 724th place, with 10.3 hours of traffic jams a year, and Saarlouis in 669th place, with 11.4 hours of traffic jams.
Two main factors may explain the difference between Luxembourg City and these examples. Firstly, Luxembourg City has a high ratio of cars per household, and secondly, more than half the people who work in the Grand Duchy are cross-border workers, and they need a means of transport. Given the particular circumstances of the Grand Duchy, the Government is investing in improving and extending public transport (examples include the tram project and a car-sharing app).
I went to a good college. One with a world-wide reputation among the best. I learned a lot by myself before getting to college, and thought I was pretty smart. I aced the SATs. I won every STEM prize offered at my high school. I graduated from high school early. And I was rewarded in college with a course load that was an order of magnitude harder than I had previously experienced. As just one example, in the introduction to electronic hardware design class, we needed to learn six -- SIX -- different programming languages. For a hardware course. As a CS student, I matriculated being at least competent in probably two dozen computer languages, and, more importantly, with the skills to pick up new ones over a weekend. I was lectured by people who were not just good, but tops in their fields. People whose videos you have probably watched online. I worked as a student intern in laboratories that have changed the world, doing peon-level stuff sure, but still, it was incredibly cool. In those four years, I learned so much more than I could possibly have learned on my own.
The currently popular belief that you can get as good an education outside of college as in, without the cost, might be true for run-of-the-mill schools, but not for mine. Was it worth the high cost, having to work during summers, and take on student debt? Hell, yes. It got me into world-class graduate schools, and landed me a job at a top-notch research institution running a lab doing incredibly amazing stuff.
Now, if I want to hire a programmer, I don't care if they have graduated from college. I want them to be IN college, so that I can offer the same sort of opportunities to the current batch of young turks that I had.
When you have a student body of 50,000 students, you need a lot of administrative staff to manage that.
Ah, you've hit the nail on the head there. The EFFICIENCY of management and administration has tanked over the last few decades. When I started my undergraduate degree, my university, one with a name you would certainly recognize, had 4000 undergraduates, about the same number of graduate students, and about 2000 administrators. When I left a decade later (after getting bachelors and then taking my time getting a separate masters and passing the qualifying exams for a doctorate), the student body was about the same size, but the tuition had gone up by almost double and.... wait for it... the number of administrators had doubled.
Where, exactly, do you think that extra tuition went? I'll give you two guesses, and the first one doesn't count.
You can buy a variety of acoustic baffling and other sound treatment that looks sleek and modern. In the end, it's just the restaurant being cheap...
Cheap and ignorant of the problem. I have, personally, attempted to quiet the equivalent of a loud bar: a conference poster session in absolute worst-case acoustic conditions of hard surfaces and an arched ceiling that concentrated noise. The noise absorbing panels cost a total of $3000, delivered at about $100 per panel, two dozen of them, plus shipping. They took the punishingly-loud situation down through very loud, to merely loud --- with 100 people all talking together in a confined space, you can't do much better than that. The panels are sleek, would look good in any modern decor, and, mounted on the ceiling, are entirely unobtrusive.
So we aren't talking a ton of money, which means the restaurant and bar owners are indeed, being either ignorant, naive, cheap, or some combination of those three.
I don't exactly know. I tried following various instructions on the web to set up a VPN with the inherent features of SSH, and it seemed impossible with my use case: laptop in hostile location, and an inability to install any software or open custom ports on my (el-cheapo shared) server. But I was able to get sshtunnel up in under 5 minutes: it just works. Nothing gets installed, no obscure ports to open here or there, no easy-to-forget settings to use on my laptop. I'm not an expert, and maybe sshtunnel is just a tool of convenience, but it works, and, for me, works well.
Please explain how to do the same thing with vanilla ssh... is it possible?
My personal favorite spin on ssh is sshtunnel. I'm not affiliated with the project, just a very satisfied user. As long as I have ssh access to my server, I can get anywhere on the net, no matter where I might be sitting at the moment.
Publicly funded researchers do the work, write it up and judge its merits. And yet the resulting intellectual property ends up in the hands of the publishers.
This quotation is blatantly false. The rest of the summary is flamebait.
1. The IP generated by the research, depending on funding source, goes to the inventor, their employer, and, sometimes, the funding source. The COPYRIGHT of the publication sometimes, goes to the publisher, depending on a lot of factors. (*)
2. If you are getting public funds (i.e., NIH funds), you have enough to pay for open-access fees, and, then, the authors retain copyright. Don't agree? A typical R01 grant (the bread-and-butter of NIH funding) is for $250,000 per year for a handful of years, typically 3-5. That pays for about two people and generous running costs, maybe three, if you can supplement NIH-set salary from some other source (why so few, you ask? In round numbers, each person is about $50K in salary, plus 30-35% in benefits; if they are students, the cost is slightly higher because although the wage is lower, the lab is typically on the hook for tuition). If your lab is very productive, your people will be putting out 2 papers per year. Best case, that's 6 publications per year. Costs vary, but for high-profile journals, open-access is about $2000 per paper. Remember those generous running costs? They can easily include $12,000 in publication fees. If, as a lab head, you haven't included those costs in your budget, you are not doing your job right. And if, as a lab head, you can't get additional funding while pumping out 6 good papers per year, you should look for other work. There's just no good excuse to avoid publishing open-access, even if your papers appear in top-tier journals.
3. We can argue long and hard about appropriate levels for open-access fees and appropriate levels of profitability for journals, but the basic assumptions of the inflammatory summary are incorrect.
(*) If, somehow, the journal ends up with copyright, and you want to use some part of the publication in additional work, the fees typically are not that expensive. Often, if it is the original author requesting re-use, it's free. Also, in the US, all publicly-funded research becomes effectively open-access after one year by law, and there's a pretty good chance that that one-year grace period is going to go away, soon.
I can readily imagine many Amazon employees made speculative decisions and brought condos in different cities. Since resources are finite, each made their own decision as to how they would use their available resources for investment, even WITHOUT any insider knowledge.
We are hearing about the lucky ones who chose correctly. What about the others?
What about the vast trove of people who did the same, but are not Amazon employees?
Aside from being cold, barren, and lacking an atmosphere... The place is covered in chemicals that are hazardous to humans. How many people would go to Antarctica if the snow was made of perchlorates.
And there's lots of radiation that will have a strong tendency to not-so-slowly kill humans because Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere to protect us, like the Earth does.
There are substantial challenges to permanently colonizing Mars. Does that make it impossible? I'm not convinced. Does it make it difficult, quite certainly, yes. Does it make the effort not worthwhile? No. Time and time again, the pursuit of society-scale technological challenges has proven to be beneficial.
My feature phone could handle voice-directed dialing nearly 20 years ago, once you trained it.
My current Android phone can handle simple tasks like setting alarms without any connectivity whatsoever, and with no training whatsoever. It amazes me each time.
As a pedestrian, I have been nearly struck WHILE IN A CROSSWALK by a bicyclist ignoring a stop sign once a month on average for the last couple of years. I have been yelled at by a bicyclist because I didn't get out of his way WHILE I WAS A PEDESTRIAN getting into my car. As a driver, I have come close to hitting a bicyclist twice as they blithely blew through a red light. And I have come close to being hit by a bicyclist many times as they barrel the wrong way down a one-way street near my home (I always stop and give them the finger). Things are so bad on that street that the city --- the city, not some vigilante group --- has put up a sign saying "If you can read this you are biking the wrong way". I have not had any accidents or even near-accidents with other cars, and my car insurance is the lowest rate allowable by law in my state. I am not crazy enough to ride a bicycle in the city where I live, despite dedicated bike lanes on many roads.
What is the problem? Bicyclists believe, as a whole, that they have absolute right of way (sorry, in my state, the closest for that is the pedestrian in a crosswalk with the light indicating it is safe to cross), and no one else other than bicyclists appear to think that is the case.
Until such time as the police start enforcing vehicle laws, and there is a licensing requirement for being on the road with a bicycle, I have no doubt that the pro-bike propaganda reported in TFA will continue to find accepting ears. Faster? Sure, because they don't obey stop signs or street slights, split lanes, and pass illegally. Motorcycles could do that too, but, in general, motorcyclists are far more aware of road dangers AND there is a licensing requirement which often (but regrettably not always) includes safety training. And, yes, I ride a motorcycle, too, but no, not in the city. Are you nuts?
I'm just an astronomy fan boy, but if something's coming in from the Oort Cloud, isn't that far enough away that all orbits are going to look parabolic to the limits of measurable accuracy? I mean we can barely determine orbits in the Kupier belt, right?
See the short story "I Always do What Teddy Says" by Harry Harrison as to why the answer is emphatically, "no."
In more detail, in a future utopia, children are given Echo-like teddy bears that are their childhood companions and educators. A family in the resistance reprograms their son's bear to remove the edict Thou Shall Not Kill in order to raise an assassin to murder the leader.
It does not end well for anyone. Fiction, yes, but highly plausible fiction. We do NOT want our children to have friends whose personalities and values are determined by a large corporation.
I have studied the growth of followers and signups. I am reminded of the oft-used phrase:
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
If you think your signups are slowing down, (1) check that your metrics are working correctly, (2) check that your assumptions of an unlimited pool for signups are still valid, (3) understand that things change.
Give that we recently learned that merely opening a water bottle was sufficient to impart microplastic particles into the water, these results should be no surprise.
Jumping from microplastics in stool to microplastics being ingested from oceanic sources, well, that doesn't pass the simplicity test when there's a far more germane answer, like they drank bottled water as many Europeans do.
Slashdot Mirror
Blinking, or other biomimetic movement, that's what ultimately makes a real head distinguishable from a statue, no matter how good the artist.
Or, if you've got a decent imaging apparatus, you can detect blood pusations in real flesh (e.g., http://news.mit.edu/2010/pulse...)
That was more than two decades ago.
The revolution in electric flying is that you can use a large amount of very small engines, to the point where you can turn your entire control surface into a mass of tiny engines, allowing for significant aerodynamic advances.
I would expect the energy losses to bearings for lots of little shafts from lots of little engines to be overwhelming compared to those two or three larger engines with one shaft each.
Efficiency of fans goes waaaay down as the impeller size shrinks, and the noise goes waaay up. Think about the fans in your computer. I would expect the same principles apply when you scale up to airplane-size fans. Not only that, with a leading-edge composed of fans you now have guaranteed non-laminar flow over your lifting surface. I would be quite surprised to learn that non-laminar lifting surfaces will be efficient and good stall-avoidance.
Finally, if turboprop is really the idea here, you now need to be able to control the pitch of lots of propellers. If there are 10 times as many propellers, that's 10 times as many things to break in critical systems. Doesn't sound like a good design corner to me.
Except we know how to handle jet fuel very, very safely, now. Extraordinarily safely. It also has a nice characteristic of not being explosive (or even combustible, really) in liquid form. We don't have jet fuel or gasoline spontaneously igniting under normal operations.
Compare with lithium batteries that are not yet to the same standard of safety. We see lithium batteries spontaneously ignite under normal operations pretty frequently still. That isn't to say that we won't figure out safe lithium battery operations, but we aren't quite there, yet.
So your comparison isn't very fair.
Thus spake Anonymous Coward:
33 hours a year in traffic jams on average? If you make 10 trips a week for 50 weeks that's 500 trips per year. 33 hours / 500 trips is abou 4 minutes per trip stuck in traffic. That's "some of the worst traffic in the world"?
From the linked article, which rather paints a very different picture than the one suggested by the summary and questioned by our AC (emphasis in bold added):
How much time a year do Luxembourgers spend stuck in traffic jams?
With 33 hours, Luxembourg City ranks 134th in the world out of more than 1,000 cities analysed.
22-02-2017
According to a study published recently by the American company Inrix, drivers in Luxembourg City spent an average of 33 hours in traffic jams in 2016. This result puts Luxembourg City in 134th place. Esch-sur-Alzette, another town in the Grand Duchy included in the study, fares better, with just 21 hours spent stuck in traffic jams. It ranks 350th on the list.
To draw up its ranking, Inrix analysed the road traffic situation in 1,064 towns in 38 different countries. Inrix accumulated 500 terabytes of data from 300 million different sources, covering 8 million kilometres of roads.
International competition
Compared with the major cities at the top of the list, the cliché of Luxembourg City as a congested capital clogged by its road traffic needs to be moderated. In comparison, for example, the inhabitants of the city of Los Angeles spent 104.1 hours in traffic jams, the inhabitants of Moscow 91.4 hours, and New Yorkers 89.4 hours.
In Europe, the ranking is led by the major cities in Russia. That does not mean that the big cities of western Europe are unencumbered. Londoners spend an average of 73.4 hours in traffic jams, while Parisians manage to waste 65.3 hours.
Overall, cities close to the Grand Duchy fared rather better than Luxembourg City. Metz is in 944th place, with 6.6 hours of traffic jams. Thionville is in 724th place, with 10.3 hours of traffic jams a year, and Saarlouis in 669th place, with 11.4 hours of traffic jams.
Two main factors may explain the difference between Luxembourg City and these examples. Firstly, Luxembourg City has a high ratio of cars per household, and secondly, more than half the people who work in the Grand Duchy are cross-border workers, and they need a means of transport. Given the particular circumstances of the Grand Duchy, the Government is investing in improving and extending public transport (examples include the tram project and a car-sharing app).
I went to a good college. One with a world-wide reputation among the best. I learned a lot by myself before getting to college, and thought I was pretty smart. I aced the SATs. I won every STEM prize offered at my high school. I graduated from high school early. And I was rewarded in college with a course load that was an order of magnitude harder than I had previously experienced. As just one example, in the introduction to electronic hardware design class, we needed to learn six -- SIX -- different programming languages. For a hardware course. As a CS student, I matriculated being at least competent in probably two dozen computer languages, and, more importantly, with the skills to pick up new ones over a weekend. I was lectured by people who were not just good, but tops in their fields. People whose videos you have probably watched online. I worked as a student intern in laboratories that have changed the world, doing peon-level stuff sure, but still, it was incredibly cool. In those four years, I learned so much more than I could possibly have learned on my own.
The currently popular belief that you can get as good an education outside of college as in, without the cost, might be true for run-of-the-mill schools, but not for mine. Was it worth the high cost, having to work during summers, and take on student debt? Hell, yes. It got me into world-class graduate schools, and landed me a job at a top-notch research institution running a lab doing incredibly amazing stuff.
Now, if I want to hire a programmer, I don't care if they have graduated from college. I want them to be IN college, so that I can offer the same sort of opportunities to the current batch of young turks that I had.
When you have a student body of 50,000 students, you need a lot of administrative staff to manage that.
Ah, you've hit the nail on the head there. The EFFICIENCY of management and administration has tanked over the last few decades. When I started my undergraduate degree, my university, one with a name you would certainly recognize, had 4000 undergraduates, about the same number of graduate students, and about 2000 administrators. When I left a decade later (after getting bachelors and then taking my time getting a separate masters and passing the qualifying exams for a doctorate), the student body was about the same size, but the tuition had gone up by almost double and .... wait for it ... the number of administrators had doubled.
Where, exactly, do you think that extra tuition went? I'll give you two guesses, and the first one doesn't count.
You can buy a variety of acoustic baffling and other sound treatment that looks sleek and modern. In the end, it's just the restaurant being cheap ...
Cheap and ignorant of the problem. I have, personally, attempted to quiet the equivalent of a loud bar: a conference poster session in absolute worst-case acoustic conditions of hard surfaces and an arched ceiling that concentrated noise. The noise absorbing panels cost a total of $3000, delivered at about $100 per panel, two dozen of them, plus shipping. They took the punishingly-loud situation down through very loud, to merely loud --- with 100 people all talking together in a confined space, you can't do much better than that. The panels are sleek, would look good in any modern decor, and, mounted on the ceiling, are entirely unobtrusive.
So we aren't talking a ton of money, which means the restaurant and bar owners are indeed, being either ignorant, naive, cheap, or some combination of those three.
I don't exactly know. I tried following various instructions on the web to set up a VPN with the inherent features of SSH, and it seemed impossible with my use case: laptop in hostile location, and an inability to install any software or open custom ports on my (el-cheapo shared) server. But I was able to get sshtunnel up in under 5 minutes: it just works. Nothing gets installed, no obscure ports to open here or there, no easy-to-forget settings to use on my laptop. I'm not an expert, and maybe sshtunnel is just a tool of convenience, but it works, and, for me, works well.
Please explain how to do the same thing with vanilla ssh ... is it possible?
My personal favorite spin on ssh is sshtunnel. I'm not affiliated with the project, just a very satisfied user. As long as I have ssh access to my server, I can get anywhere on the net, no matter where I might be sitting at the moment.
Publicly funded researchers do the work, write it up and judge its merits. And yet the resulting intellectual property ends up in the hands of the publishers.
This quotation is blatantly false. The rest of the summary is flamebait.
1. The IP generated by the research, depending on funding source, goes to the inventor, their employer, and, sometimes, the funding source. The COPYRIGHT of the publication sometimes, goes to the publisher, depending on a lot of factors. (*)
2. If you are getting public funds (i.e., NIH funds), you have enough to pay for open-access fees, and, then, the authors retain copyright. Don't agree? A typical R01 grant (the bread-and-butter of NIH funding) is for $250,000 per year for a handful of years, typically 3-5. That pays for about two people and generous running costs, maybe three, if you can supplement NIH-set salary from some other source (why so few, you ask? In round numbers, each person is about $50K in salary, plus 30-35% in benefits; if they are students, the cost is slightly higher because although the wage is lower, the lab is typically on the hook for tuition). If your lab is very productive, your people will be putting out 2 papers per year. Best case, that's 6 publications per year. Costs vary, but for high-profile journals, open-access is about $2000 per paper. Remember those generous running costs? They can easily include $12,000 in publication fees. If, as a lab head, you haven't included those costs in your budget, you are not doing your job right. And if, as a lab head, you can't get additional funding while pumping out 6 good papers per year, you should look for other work. There's just no good excuse to avoid publishing open-access, even if your papers appear in top-tier journals.
3. We can argue long and hard about appropriate levels for open-access fees and appropriate levels of profitability for journals, but the basic assumptions of the inflammatory summary are incorrect.
(*) If, somehow, the journal ends up with copyright, and you want to use some part of the publication in additional work, the fees typically are not that expensive. Often, if it is the original author requesting re-use, it's free. Also, in the US, all publicly-funded research becomes effectively open-access after one year by law, and there's a pretty good chance that that one-year grace period is going to go away, soon.
There are plenty of organic things that will kill ya..
Like nightshade, hemlock. Various mushrooms. Many berries.
We knew the short list, right? It was public.
I can readily imagine many Amazon employees made speculative decisions and brought condos in different cities. Since resources are finite, each made their own decision as to how they would use their available resources for investment, even WITHOUT any insider knowledge.
We are hearing about the lucky ones who chose correctly. What about the others?
What about the vast trove of people who did the same, but are not Amazon employees?
Aside from being cold, barren, and lacking an atmosphere... The place is covered in chemicals that are hazardous to humans. How many people would go to Antarctica if the snow was made of perchlorates.
And there's lots of radiation that will have a strong tendency to not-so-slowly kill humans because Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere to protect us, like the Earth does.
There are substantial challenges to permanently colonizing Mars. Does that make it impossible? I'm not convinced. Does it make it difficult, quite certainly, yes. Does it make the effort not worthwhile? No. Time and time again, the pursuit of society-scale technological challenges has proven to be beneficial.
My feature phone could handle voice-directed dialing nearly 20 years ago, once you trained it.
My current Android phone can handle simple tasks like setting alarms without any connectivity whatsoever, and with no training whatsoever. It amazes me each time.
What is the problem with Apple's Siri?
I live in one of the finalist cities, and I am nothing but relieved that we weren't chosen.
As a pedestrian, I have been nearly struck WHILE IN A CROSSWALK by a bicyclist ignoring a stop sign once a month on average for the last couple of years. I have been yelled at by a bicyclist because I didn't get out of his way WHILE I WAS A PEDESTRIAN getting into my car. As a driver, I have come close to hitting a bicyclist twice as they blithely blew through a red light. And I have come close to being hit by a bicyclist many times as they barrel the wrong way down a one-way street near my home (I always stop and give them the finger). Things are so bad on that street that the city --- the city, not some vigilante group --- has put up a sign saying "If you can read this you are biking the wrong way". I have not had any accidents or even near-accidents with other cars, and my car insurance is the lowest rate allowable by law in my state. I am not crazy enough to ride a bicycle in the city where I live, despite dedicated bike lanes on many roads.
What is the problem? Bicyclists believe, as a whole, that they have absolute right of way (sorry, in my state, the closest for that is the pedestrian in a crosswalk with the light indicating it is safe to cross), and no one else other than bicyclists appear to think that is the case.
Until such time as the police start enforcing vehicle laws, and there is a licensing requirement for being on the road with a bicycle, I have no doubt that the pro-bike propaganda reported in TFA will continue to find accepting ears. Faster? Sure, because they don't obey stop signs or street slights, split lanes, and pass illegally. Motorcycles could do that too, but, in general, motorcyclists are far more aware of road dangers AND there is a licensing requirement which often (but regrettably not always) includes safety training. And, yes, I ride a motorcycle, too, but no, not in the city. Are you nuts?
I'm just an astronomy fan boy, but if something's coming in from the Oort Cloud, isn't that far enough away that all orbits are going to look parabolic to the limits of measurable accuracy? I mean we can barely determine orbits in the Kupier belt, right?
This lengthy explanation is exactly, precisely, why I keep my personal schedule and research notes on paper and will not give them up.
See the short story "I Always do What Teddy Says" by Harry Harrison as to why the answer is emphatically, "no."
In more detail, in a future utopia, children are given Echo-like teddy bears that are their childhood companions and educators. A family in the resistance reprograms their son's bear to remove the edict Thou Shall Not Kill in order to raise an assassin to murder the leader.
It does not end well for anyone. Fiction, yes, but highly plausible fiction. We do NOT want our children to have friends whose personalities and values are determined by a large corporation.
[Reaction wheels] were [used], they failed.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/j...
Someone needs to improve that design if four out of four failed in only a handful of years.
The images and videos linked from the summary are denoted as simulations.
Anyone know what the real data look like? Or if the organge-vs-blue whisps mean anything?
The exterior of all mail is considered to be public information, including post-cards. There is no expectation of privacy.
Want to write a post-card without making the contents public? Put it in an envelope, simple as that.
I have studied the growth of followers and signups. I am reminded of the oft-used phrase:
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
If you think your signups are slowing down, (1) check that your metrics are working correctly, (2) check that your assumptions of an unlimited pool for signups are still valid, (3) understand that things change.
Give that we recently learned that merely opening a water bottle was sufficient to impart microplastic particles into the water, these results should be no surprise.
Jumping from microplastics in stool to microplastics being ingested from oceanic sources, well, that doesn't pass the simplicity test when there's a far more germane answer, like they drank bottled water as many Europeans do.