I've been gathering peoples' reactions to this study in the comments sections of news articles for my paper, "Catchphrase Hokum: Assessing The Public's Willingness To Believe Anything That Uses Buzzwords And Was Published In A Journal With A Five-Year Impact Factor Less Than One", which has been accepted for publication in the journal Gullibility.
... that at the very least, many plants attack their foes. Many plants produce chemicals in their roots or leaf litter that hinder plant growth or seed germination but which they themselves are immune to. And when I say "long known", observations of such allelopathathic effects date back to at least Theophrastus in 300 BC, and most agricultural societies have long had rules about how "Plant A will grow well with B but poorly with C", which can generally be seen as allelopathy. In research, most cases of concern are where weeds produce chemicals that hinder commercial crops, but it also works the other way around - for example, rice (which they mention above) creates root exudates hinder the germination of competing seedlings.
Of course, there are non-chemical ways (such as shade, root growth, etc) to hinder foes without hurting yourself or your brethren, but the chemical ways are usually the most striking, as their purposes are so unambiguous. While shade, root growth, etc can be natural consequences of your own development, you don't invest energy in producing secondary metabolites unless you want them to accomplish something with them.
"Thule" and "Ultima Thule" generally referred to Iceland and Greenland, and has been used to refer to distant lands for millennia. It's unfair that one particular group's cooption of the term is supposed to have ruined it.
Getting the data is hard enough. They're lucky when they can download at 1 kbps, and roughly 1 in every 10 bits is an error. It's going to take 20 months to download all of the data from this encounter.
Much better images are coming (even today we'll get somewhat better images), but it's going to take time. "Visually appealing images" are also competing against other scientific data for bandwidth. The best pictures will be about 4 times better resolution (on each axis). Also, this first picture was almost "dead on" with respect to the sun, which hides surface contours; later pictures will be at steeper angles, which will show the surface much better.
The top 5 best selling BEVs in the US this year are, in order:
* Tesla Model 3 (primarily the LR version, 310 miles, but also some MRs, 265mi).
* Tesla Model X (237-295mi)
* Tesla Model S (259-335mi)
* Chevy Bolt (238mi)
* Nissan Leaf (150mi, but next year's version ("E-Plus") is expected to be about 225mi; it was supposed to have already been unveiled but got delayed due to the Ghosn debacle)
Other well anticipated EVs coming early next year are the Hyundai Kona (258mi) and the Kia Niro (~250mi). Also in the running, Jaguar I-Pace started sales at the end of this year (234mi), at low volumes. Audi E-Tron starts sales next year (~240mi).
It's a great point. What's acceptable to show and what isn't is entirely a cultural construct, and cultures vary widely. They're basically declaring, "US cultural norms about nudity are the only valid ones" to an international audience of users.
It's hypocrisy. If women are attracted to something on men, well that's okay to show (everything but the genitals!), but if men are attracted to something on women, why, that must be hidden! Well, at least we've gotten past hiding things like hair and ankles....
I think last year's áramótaskaup did a great job parodying the double standard in a (NSFW) video about the "Free The Nipple" campaign that was a big deal for a while here (the video is in Icelandic, so remember the subtitles button)
wall thickness is not to protect rebar. commercial building codes specify 1.5" from rebar edge to concrete surface for bar size #2-#6 typically (with almost no exceptions) and 3" for earth exposed rebar (up to #6 or 5/8" dia rebar
You just contradicted yourself there. That minimum 1,5" / 3" is to protect the passivation layer on the steel (whether you realize that or not). The thicker the layer, the longer that carbonation takes. In ideal conditions, carbonation depth (in mm) progresses at a rate roughly: (-3,59 + 9 * W/B) * sqrt(t) where W/B is the water/binder ratio and t is time. However, a number of factors can significantly accelerate carbonation, so large margins need to be allowed for.
Modern concrete includes the seeds of its own demise - its steel rebar. The steel is protected from corrosion by the highly basic environment of the concrete, but the slowly cement begins being converted back to limestone by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This lowers the pH. When the pH drops too much near the steel, it begins quickly rusting, expands nearly tenfold, and the concrete spalls out. Indeed, minimum wall thicknesses in many places have nothing to do with required compressive strength, and are rather just to protect the steel.
FRP (fibre-reinforced plastic) rebar, by contrast, not only tolerates a more neutral pH, but actually prefers it. It's not a direct drop-in replacement (it bears tensile loads, but is poor (esp. when not using CFRP) at shear and compressive loads). But you can use small amounts of stainless rebar wherever you can't use FRP. Also, while you can bend FRP rebar along gentle curves, it can't handle sharp curves; you order pre-shaped curves for that. On the other hand, it's much easier to work with than steel - it's lightweight and you can cut it with a simple reciprocating saw.
FRP rebar doesn't rust, but its strength does decrease with time. However, most of its strength loss is early on, and the rate of loss slowly declines with time. Among FRP rebar, fibres are generally (from worst to best): GFRP (glass), BFRP (basalt), AFRP (aramid), and CFRP (carbon). CFRP is awesome stuff... suffers almost no degradation in any conditions (even less than its plastic binder)... but it's currently very expensive. IMHO, BFRP is the best balance of price versus mechanical properties. As for binders, epoxy binders are best. Sometimes you see uncoated products (I've even seen a structure entirely reinforced with just bare roving), but that's not ideal for longevity.
I assume that they were talking about wood, which isn't mud. But you can most certainly can reduce the carbon footprint of concrete construction itself. My home uses a pozzolanic mix, with about half of the cement replaced by basalt dust, and most of the steel replaced by basalt fibre rebar.
Pozzolanic concrete is slower to set, but has more long-term durability. Chemically, it harkens partially back to Roman concrete. There are lots of different pozzolans besides basalt dust, including volcanic ash, coal fly ash, activated clays, etc.
No, they were doing a news report on how well the Waymo cars actually drive, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You can see a summary (including the police stop) here. The basic summary: they're good at stopping for threats, but they suck at lane changes and some turns. Despite being in a tightly geofenced area (aka, the cars are "trained to the test"), they found one left turn which the cars could never manage to take without human intervention.
It's understandable that people would be upset if they see the cars as bad drivers. You don't have to invoke motives that people see them as a "threat to their future" when the people are literally telling you that they're upset with how the cars drive.
The Kármán line isn't just an arbitrary altitude, either. It's the point at which the atmosphere relatively abruptly starts transitioning from "well mixed, with a composition like at the surface" to "increasingly dominated by light and ionized species"
Of course, Kármán defined it as the rough point at which lift ceases being relevant for an aircraft moving at orbital velocities (which is also a meaningful definition).
And you seem to have trouble accepting that I was correct about everything I wrote about the company this summer - production growth, margin growth, limited increases in SG&A, no need for a new equity round, etc, etc - and earned a mint because of that. Sorry, but there were two sides to this story this summer, and my side won. Being right about your research on a company and marketplace has positive consequences. Being wrong has negative consequences.
You're saying that you invested in Valeant in 2016? Or are you engaging in the fallacy of "because I disagree with Wall Street's consensus, Wall Street must be wrong"? If so... I strongly, strongly encourage you to short Tesla!
FYI, the guy who launched the short campaign against Valeant back in 2016? Andrew Left, of Citron Research? He switched teams. He's now long TSLA.;)
Huh? The Model 3 is the best-selling EV by an order of magnitude in the US. How does the best-selling EV - one of the best-selling cars, period in the US - "not exist"? Or are you talking about the base model? Why exactly should they be focusing on the cheapest versions when they're selling every single higher-margin car they can get off the line?
As of several weeks ago - before the most recent set of upgrades to increase production capacity (which generally comes hand-in-hand with improved margins, as it means lower man-hours and depreciation per vehicle) - the cost of producing a base Model 3 (with zero options) was stated to be $38k. But almost nobody buys a car with zero options. Adding almost any options packages (PUP, AWD, AP, etc) would have pushed that up into profitability. So even then Tesla could have been selling base models profitably. But I'll repeat: what's the point? Someone has to wait in either situation. We here in Europe have been waiting patiently for our very first Model 3s of any kind. You think Tesla should tell us "Go wait another year, we want to make some less profitable cars to sell here"? Your "F*** everyone outside of the US" sentiment is duly noted.
Business Insider's CEO and Editor-In-Chief Henry Blodget is a Yale history graduate who previously worked on Wall Street until he was banned for life from the securities industry because of his violations of securities laws and subsequent civil trial, which ended with a $2 million fine plus a $2 million disgorgement and the permanent ban in 2003.
Oh, and the point of a large figure (which Tripp obviously can't pay) has nothing to do with Tripp himself. The fun part will be discovery. Because anyone who might have been involved in telling him what data to get or otherwise communicating with him during the theft (Linette Lopez, I'm looking at you) would be soliciting a crime. Like, for example:
Peavy v. WFAA-TV Inc.: The media outlet was approached by an informant claiming that he had information about a local news issue. The media outlet refused to use the information without further documentation, encouraged the informant to obtain that, and advised him on the process (which amounted to an illegal wiretapping). The media outlet was found to have advised and encouraged the illegal acquisition of materials, which it then took possession of and published. The court characterized this as “undisputed participation.” The informant and the media outlet were found to be liable for the illegal acquisition.
Business Insider was valued at nearly $400M in 2015. If Linette was found to have been involved in the acquisition in any way - or in general failed any of the Bartnicki v. Vopper criteria:
1) The media outlet played no role in the illegal interception 2) The media received the information lawfully 3) The issue was a matter of public concern
Then they're criminally liable for the theft. And BI can't classify it as the actions of a "rogue employee", because when challenged earlier on the theft, BI came to Lopez's defense.
Also to watch out for:
* People who took a short position in TSLA after learning of the story before it was published
* People who already held a short position in TSLA who were involved in the chain of command on any decisions to work with Tripp and to publish
As I mentioned... discovery on this case is going to be loads of fun:) Especially because Tripp has so far proven so wreckless with how he's handled himself in this case (including posting a bunch of self-incriminating tweets - about revenge against Elon, claiming he doesn't know how to program, trying to hide his adafruit, scribd and stackoverflow accounts and then making hilariously bad excuses as for why he did so, chatting with famous Tesla shorts, etc - and then deleting them, as if they'd just disappear from the face of the Earth).
In early July, Tripp filed a formal complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that Tesla made "material omissions and misstatements" to investors relating to its flawed manufacturing practices and handling of scrap at the Gigafactory. Tripp was represented by Meissner Associates in the whistleblower matter earlier, but is now representing himself, attorney Stuart Meissner told CNBC. Meissner declined to comment further. Tripp also declined requests for comment.
Meissner was warned repeatedly that his client was A) out of control, and B) a pathological liar. He appears to have come to the same conclusion.
His client has also apparently fled to Hungary, so then there's that.
The lowest-energy way to get to orbit is to launch as close to the equator as possible. You *can* get to orbit from anywhere, in any direction, but it makes it a lot harder (higher energy requirements = smaller payloads).
With polar orbits you basically say, "Screw it, we're doing it the hard way because we want a non-equatorial orbit". There's a number of advantages for certain types of missions. One is that you can fly over every part of the world (if you launch at a given latitude heading east, your orbit will only be between that latitude north and south). Another advantage is that you can do sun-synchronous low-earth orbits.
I don't understand why they chose South Australia and gave up the advantages of a site closer to the equator. I mean, it's not like there's no decent roads to the northeast. And then the population density drops way off after Cairns. You've got open sea to the east-northeast. Etc.
Going with South Australia makes me think that they're mainly looking at polar launches. Otherwise, they're launching over land - and while it's sparsely populated land, there will still by cities and roads downrange. And even ignoring accidents, what about expended stages? Unless they're going the SpaceX route... Well, at least if a failed launch or expended stage were to land on Coober Pedy, a lot of people would be underground;)
Slashdot Mirror
I've been gathering peoples' reactions to this study in the comments sections of news articles for my paper, "Catchphrase Hokum: Assessing The Public's Willingness To Believe Anything That Uses Buzzwords And Was Published In A Journal With A Five-Year Impact Factor Less Than One", which has been accepted for publication in the journal Gullibility.
... that at the very least, many plants attack their foes. Many plants produce chemicals in their roots or leaf litter that hinder plant growth or seed germination but which they themselves are immune to. And when I say "long known", observations of such allelopathathic effects date back to at least Theophrastus in 300 BC, and most agricultural societies have long had rules about how "Plant A will grow well with B but poorly with C", which can generally be seen as allelopathy. In research, most cases of concern are where weeds produce chemicals that hinder commercial crops, but it also works the other way around - for example, rice (which they mention above) creates root exudates hinder the germination of competing seedlings.
Of course, there are non-chemical ways (such as shade, root growth, etc) to hinder foes without hurting yourself or your brethren, but the chemical ways are usually the most striking, as their purposes are so unambiguous. While shade, root growth, etc can be natural consequences of your own development, you don't invest energy in producing secondary metabolites unless you want them to accomplish something with them.
"Thule" and "Ultima Thule" generally referred to Iceland and Greenland, and has been used to refer to distant lands for millennia. It's unfair that one particular group's cooption of the term is supposed to have ruined it.
Getting the data is hard enough. They're lucky when they can download at 1 kbps, and roughly 1 in every 10 bits is an error. It's going to take 20 months to download all of the data from this encounter.
Much better images are coming (even today we'll get somewhat better images), but it's going to take time. "Visually appealing images" are also competing against other scientific data for bandwidth. The best pictures will be about 4 times better resolution (on each axis). Also, this first picture was almost "dead on" with respect to the sun, which hides surface contours; later pictures will be at steeper angles, which will show the surface much better.
ED: ** this year's version. I forgot, it's 2019 now! :)
The top 5 best selling BEVs in the US this year are, in order:
* Tesla Model 3 (primarily the LR version, 310 miles, but also some MRs, 265mi).
* Tesla Model X (237-295mi)
* Tesla Model S (259-335mi)
* Chevy Bolt (238mi)
* Nissan Leaf (150mi, but next year's version ("E-Plus") is expected to be about 225mi; it was supposed to have already been unveiled but got delayed due to the Ghosn debacle)
Other well anticipated EVs coming early next year are the Hyundai Kona (258mi) and the Kia Niro (~250mi). Also in the running, Jaguar I-Pace started sales at the end of this year (234mi), at low volumes. Audi E-Tron starts sales next year (~240mi).
Since you're apparently connecting to the internet from the 1990s: Short Pets.com. Buy Amazon.
I assumed that the fact that it has feet means that the spacecraft is of a "Voltron"-type design.
I guess that's better than a Guntron design...
It's a great point. What's acceptable to show and what isn't is entirely a cultural construct, and cultures vary widely. They're basically declaring, "US cultural norms about nudity are the only valid ones" to an international audience of users.
Ignoring the obvious double standard issue....
It's hypocrisy. If women are attracted to something on men, well that's okay to show (everything but the genitals!), but if men are attracted to something on women, why, that must be hidden! Well, at least we've gotten past hiding things like hair and ankles....
I think last year's áramótaskaup did a great job parodying the double standard in a (NSFW) video about the "Free The Nipple" campaign that was a big deal for a while here (the video is in Icelandic, so remember the subtitles button)
You just contradicted yourself there. That minimum 1,5" / 3" is to protect the passivation layer on the steel (whether you realize that or not). The thicker the layer, the longer that carbonation takes. In ideal conditions, carbonation depth (in mm) progresses at a rate roughly: (-3,59 + 9 * W/B) * sqrt(t) where W/B is the water/binder ratio and t is time. However, a number of factors can significantly accelerate carbonation, so large margins need to be allowed for.
Modern concrete includes the seeds of its own demise - its steel rebar. The steel is protected from corrosion by the highly basic environment of the concrete, but the slowly cement begins being converted back to limestone by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This lowers the pH. When the pH drops too much near the steel, it begins quickly rusting, expands nearly tenfold, and the concrete spalls out. Indeed, minimum wall thicknesses in many places have nothing to do with required compressive strength, and are rather just to protect the steel.
FRP (fibre-reinforced plastic) rebar, by contrast, not only tolerates a more neutral pH, but actually prefers it. It's not a direct drop-in replacement (it bears tensile loads, but is poor (esp. when not using CFRP) at shear and compressive loads). But you can use small amounts of stainless rebar wherever you can't use FRP. Also, while you can bend FRP rebar along gentle curves, it can't handle sharp curves; you order pre-shaped curves for that. On the other hand, it's much easier to work with than steel - it's lightweight and you can cut it with a simple reciprocating saw.
FRP rebar doesn't rust, but its strength does decrease with time. However, most of its strength loss is early on, and the rate of loss slowly declines with time. Among FRP rebar, fibres are generally (from worst to best): GFRP (glass), BFRP (basalt), AFRP (aramid), and CFRP (carbon). CFRP is awesome stuff... suffers almost no degradation in any conditions (even less than its plastic binder)... but it's currently very expensive. IMHO, BFRP is the best balance of price versus mechanical properties. As for binders, epoxy binders are best. Sometimes you see uncoated products (I've even seen a structure entirely reinforced with just bare roving), but that's not ideal for longevity.
I assume that they were talking about wood, which isn't mud. But you can most certainly can reduce the carbon footprint of concrete construction itself. My home uses a pozzolanic mix, with about half of the cement replaced by basalt dust, and most of the steel replaced by basalt fibre rebar.
Pozzolanic concrete is slower to set, but has more long-term durability. Chemically, it harkens partially back to Roman concrete. There are lots of different pozzolans besides basalt dust, including volcanic ash, coal fly ash, activated clays, etc.
No, they were doing a news report on how well the Waymo cars actually drive, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You can see a summary (including the police stop) here. The basic summary: they're good at stopping for threats, but they suck at lane changes and some turns. Despite being in a tightly geofenced area (aka, the cars are "trained to the test"), they found one left turn which the cars could never manage to take without human intervention.
It's understandable that people would be upset if they see the cars as bad drivers. You don't have to invoke motives that people see them as a "threat to their future" when the people are literally telling you that they're upset with how the cars drive.
The Kármán line isn't just an arbitrary altitude, either. It's the point at which the atmosphere relatively abruptly starts transitioning from "well mixed, with a composition like at the surface" to "increasingly dominated by light and ionized species"
Of course, Kármán defined it as the rough point at which lift ceases being relevant for an aircraft moving at orbital velocities (which is also a meaningful definition).
Aww, come on, join the TSLAQ party! Margin calls are fun.
And you seem to have trouble accepting that I was correct about everything I wrote about the company this summer - production growth, margin growth, limited increases in SG&A, no need for a new equity round, etc, etc - and earned a mint because of that. Sorry, but there were two sides to this story this summer, and my side won. Being right about your research on a company and marketplace has positive consequences. Being wrong has negative consequences.
You're saying that you invested in Valeant in 2016? Or are you engaging in the fallacy of "because I disagree with Wall Street's consensus, Wall Street must be wrong"? If so... I strongly, strongly encourage you to short Tesla!
FYI, the guy who launched the short campaign against Valeant back in 2016? Andrew Left, of Citron Research? He switched teams. He's now long TSLA. ;)
Wall Street disagrees with you. TSLA keeps rising, while macros keep falling.
How are your investments looking these past few months? Odds are, pretty bloody terrible. Mine are doing amazing.
Huh? The Model 3 is the best-selling EV by an order of magnitude in the US. How does the best-selling EV - one of the best-selling cars, period in the US - "not exist"? Or are you talking about the base model? Why exactly should they be focusing on the cheapest versions when they're selling every single higher-margin car they can get off the line?
As of several weeks ago - before the most recent set of upgrades to increase production capacity (which generally comes hand-in-hand with improved margins, as it means lower man-hours and depreciation per vehicle) - the cost of producing a base Model 3 (with zero options) was stated to be $38k. But almost nobody buys a car with zero options. Adding almost any options packages (PUP, AWD, AP, etc) would have pushed that up into profitability. So even then Tesla could have been selling base models profitably. But I'll repeat: what's the point? Someone has to wait in either situation. We here in Europe have been waiting patiently for our very first Model 3s of any kind. You think Tesla should tell us "Go wait another year, we want to make some less profitable cars to sell here"? Your "F*** everyone outside of the US" sentiment is duly noted.
Oh, and fun fact about Business Insider:
Pull on the thread....
Oh, and the point of a large figure (which Tripp obviously can't pay) has nothing to do with Tripp himself. The fun part will be discovery. Because anyone who might have been involved in telling him what data to get or otherwise communicating with him during the theft (Linette Lopez, I'm looking at you) would be soliciting a crime. Like, for example:
Peavy v. WFAA-TV Inc.: The media outlet was approached by an informant claiming that he had information about a local news issue. The media outlet refused to use the information without further documentation, encouraged the informant to obtain that, and advised him on the process (which amounted to an illegal wiretapping). The media outlet was found to have advised and encouraged the illegal acquisition of materials, which it then took possession of and published. The court characterized this as “undisputed participation.” The informant and the media outlet were found to be liable for the illegal acquisition.
Business Insider was valued at nearly $400M in 2015. If Linette was found to have been involved in the acquisition in any way - or in general failed any of the Bartnicki v. Vopper criteria:
1) The media outlet played no role in the illegal interception
2) The media received the information lawfully
3) The issue was a matter of public concern
Then they're criminally liable for the theft. And BI can't classify it as the actions of a "rogue employee", because when challenged earlier on the theft, BI came to Lopez's defense.
Also to watch out for:
* People who took a short position in TSLA after learning of the story before it was published
* People who already held a short position in TSLA who were involved in the chain of command on any decisions to work with Tripp and to publish
As I mentioned... discovery on this case is going to be loads of fun :) Especially because Tripp has so far proven so wreckless with how he's handled himself in this case (including posting a bunch of self-incriminating tweets - about revenge against Elon, claiming he doesn't know how to program, trying to hide his adafruit, scribd and stackoverflow accounts and then making hilariously bad excuses as for why he did so, chatting with famous Tesla shorts, etc - and then deleting them, as if they'd just disappear from the face of the Earth).
From the article:
Meissner was warned repeatedly that his client was A) out of control, and B) a pathological liar. He appears to have come to the same conclusion.
His client has also apparently fled to Hungary, so then there's that.
The lowest-energy way to get to orbit is to launch as close to the equator as possible. You *can* get to orbit from anywhere, in any direction, but it makes it a lot harder (higher energy requirements = smaller payloads).
With polar orbits you basically say, "Screw it, we're doing it the hard way because we want a non-equatorial orbit". There's a number of advantages for certain types of missions. One is that you can fly over every part of the world (if you launch at a given latitude heading east, your orbit will only be between that latitude north and south). Another advantage is that you can do sun-synchronous low-earth orbits.
I don't understand why they chose South Australia and gave up the advantages of a site closer to the equator. I mean, it's not like there's no decent roads to the northeast. And then the population density drops way off after Cairns. You've got open sea to the east-northeast. Etc.
Going with South Australia makes me think that they're mainly looking at polar launches. Otherwise, they're launching over land - and while it's sparsely populated land, there will still by cities and roads downrange. And even ignoring accidents, what about expended stages? Unless they're going the SpaceX route... Well, at least if a failed launch or expended stage were to land on Coober Pedy, a lot of people would be underground ;)
*cough*