And to add to that great silver lining of the post chain:
The problem with the study of nutrition is that its based on a chain of events. Its one thing when a baby is in the womb, where the mothers body is going into full overdrive to create nutrients to stave off deficiency during birth, and eventually staving it off defencies at some later point. For humans its one thing, because we are at the top of the food chain and we live long. Humans can live long enough to experience long term deficiencies in minerals and vitamins. But we live off the food chain, the food chain lives of the land. On top of being Apex Predators, Humans are also omnivores. Which means that our evolved bodies need to have adapted to different nutritional needs as we evolved.
Which brings us to a simple issue: For us to identify a vitamin, you need to successfully identify it in humans and in food. Food can be insects, plants, roots, fish or livestock. We also need to identify that its lacking, and that adding fixes the problem. So to identify something like Iron or vitamin C is somewhat fast: Malnutrition shows up within half a year at most. B12 shows up within a few years. But what if there is something that shows up in decades? Since nutritional targeting is what it is, and so is food processing, we don't know that we are starving or unbalancing our diets until decades into testing. Our nutritional knowledge also applies to livestock: What they get as nutrition could be limited by our understanding of nutrition, which affects what humans then acquire by eating said livestock. And this example applies plants as well, since fertile farmland do enjoy fertilizer in some form. But there is another limiting factor: In nature over ten thousands of years, health can be acquired by natural selection and mutations offering synthesis or reduction in needs of certain vitamins or minerals. But this is not something that can be done in its natural tempo, because its beyond our timescale. We could be starving ourselfs without finding out until decades later.
But this wide issue also applies to diet. Ketosis vs Glycolysis is a fresh example, where Glycolysis is assumed to be somewhat effective, where Ketosis is poorly understood or researched until current modern times. Nutritional research has been affected by such issues for a very long time, meaning our source of knowledge is poisoned to some degree. Another issue is digestion: We do know that vitamins and protovitamins are completely different. But we don't know the long term health consequences of moving from soured yeast to beer yeast for industrial baking, nor do we properly understand how human health are impacted by eating less fermented food.
And then the problem becomes that good studies can't be based on our lack of understanding of the deeper unveiled yet revealed systems of nutrition, yet that is what nutritional research is based on. As we go on we will likely discover amazing things about aging, and its relationship to malnutrition and the digestive system gaining resistance to certain substances.
So basically if you where to build 2 towers or dedicate a landscape to it, you could harvest 1TW directly from the atmosphere? That do sound pretty great. Why not just build the tower, some receivers, and put some wires from these towers to sell?
And in other film series you Universal's 'Dark Universe'. They have published 1 okay movie and one terrible movie since 2014. In the same span MARVEL spat out 12 unique movies thats good. In these movies, each scene thats a part of the 'larger narrative' is mostly terrible scenes which end up ruining the pacing of the movie. Instead of a exciting movie, the possibility of exciting scenes are 'delayed to the next movie' which never comes or delivers on its promise.
So what is going on the MARVEL side of the fence? The MARVEL films makes money because each film is good. But there is another benefit: Because of the MCU brand each successive movie basically gets free PR, meaning that each successive "good" movie will continue to cash in on the brand.
This has been tried before with Rocky, Highlander, Pokemon and several other franchises. Its a tried and true concept: People who enjoyed Highlander will watch Highlander II when it lands in theater, making it possible to increase or stabilize revenue. But the difference between a movie series and MCU is that MCU is based on a franchise that already have the script for a few hundred good movies and storylines. So unlike traditional movie franchises you already have a red line to make several movies. Where movies are written per script, produced standalone, and sequels are made as standalone script with the artistic limitation of being made as a single product. In the MCU, the framework to make all the movies is already there. The screen writers just have to decide what arc they are going with(Infinity Gauntlet) and then produce that arc, taking other arcs and making them into standalone movies to make the framework for the arc. So far the Infinity Gauntlet Arc has been 15 released movies out of 19 MCU movies.
And that is what makes the MCU into what it is. If you don't know about the source material or look over the list of featured films its not going to be obvious that this has been one large arc. And i have trouble imaging standalone movies with standalone scripts doing Movie: Movie 19 and not have the wellspring or the structure of the script gone completely dry. Most series have problems making Movie: Movie 2 and even large problems making Movie: Movie 3
Added note: What is funny to me, is that on the movie side MCU is a success. While on the TV side its a disaster that lives purely of the fact MCU have had 19 movies and still more being produced. On the TV side there has been 11 shows so far, some with enough audience to warrant more than one season. Each of them being produced episode by episode, script by script, with terrible arc progression, terrible budget and poor foresight/planning. The TV side is EXACTLY what you describe, were its only working because its part of the MCU(despite being mostly terrible).
Thats because 4, 5 and 6 has a plot in each movie on top of the overarching greater storyline. So you end up with 2 layers of storyline, that adds more depth to the movies as you watch them. It also escalating things that is introduced in the first movie, and go further and further into its concepts.
Where Episode 1 really doesn't do anything but the overarching story, 2 need to have Clone Wars for the lore bulletpoint, and 3 needs to have Anakin turn and the Jedi dead. So 1-3 ends up having one storyline with a few good moments to make a good cinema series. Its a lot like watching a better TV series where you have a arc thats multiple episodes: But only with bigger budget, actual quality, good pre planning. And thats why it works, despite being a lot more sparse about its storyline for its runtime. 1-3 also have a less clear plot, so a summary would quickly turn into a bulletpoint over the trilogy: 1. The emperors storyline 2. Anakin story 3. Obiwan's story The only discredit i have to 1-3 is that most of the good content ends up being shuffed into the Clone Wars series, where its actually allowed to play out in greater artistic detail. Where you suddenly have entire episodes dedicated to Politics, Sith sheenigans, space pirates, or Clone PTSD.
While i haven't gotten around to Solo yet, so far Rogue One has been the strongest movie StarWarsDisney has made. While the plot is extremely simple(Lets steal the Death Star Plans), and it takes quite a bit of the movie before it goes anywhere(in terms of pacing), once it they end up on the Palm Beach planet the plot and action kicks into what is a good experience.
7 have a lot of things going on, but nothing pans out, so it doesn't become anything to write home about. Like by destroying the Starkiller planet they should have basically won the war, but then by the next installment the Rebels are suddenly on the ropes against the Last Order giga army. 8 tries to repeat Empire Strikes Back without doing anything to advance the plot, or do a story. And i would suspect that 9 is going to do exactly the same, maybe ending the 7-9 arc in some fashion. So 7-9 is going to end with repeating the problems with 1-3, but its also going to copy what 4-6 did for its arcs without doing anything to have the some kind of progress. Its going to end up a lot like a copycat film, where you take elements without understanding WHY or HOW they where applied to make the movie a commercial success.
I would still ask for a source for that. Recently i had the experience to work with a large variety of battery powered tools of a few different providers. Drills, jackhammers, angle grinders, and several variants of miniature saws. These devices generally are of such a power consumption that once they run they will only be halted by the battery running out.
Now, there are some things to consider when using such tools. One basic idea is that you want to limit your sessions somewhat, to avoid heat damaging the metallurgy in the tools. While the saws blades and angles are replaceable, its still a loss of valuable work time. The reason for bringing such a item on the agenda is that its very related to the topic: For these kinds of tools they are incapable of halting in operation unless the blade breaks or they run out of power. And what you do get for ditching batteries is that you get larger models with more power: Meaning they cut faster with less resistance. In damaged batteries, you will see similar effects to what is described in the topic at hand: They will randomly cut in power and halt operation complete. Its a world of difference between the halt and imaging using a angle grider thats weaker.
I think my cause is lost. I asked about "scooters" or "kick bikes" which is what... barely 1 kg of weight. Not 10 kg bikes. UK laws for bicycles is i don't even.
Are we talking about the same thing? Because i really really doubt it, especially has it has primary been a children toy alongside skates and rollerblades.
Because its a cultural long term issue that has been delayed to deal with for quite a while. Basically kick bikes are considered sidewalk worthy by US and British law. Where bicycles has to go on the road, due the same legal history from the early 1900s. And this isn't the case all over the world, but thats a different issue.
The actual problem is that due the way cities are built, streets are somewhat undersized for actual populated areas. By itself it became this way because legally your options where to bike on the road, drive to work, or walk on the sidewalk. Combined with sidewalk's in USA generally not being structure to being a walkable long path that goes to your destination, combined with light crosses and terrible zebra stripe placement. Now, if biking on the sidewalk where the norm, you could have had this lawsuit a few decades earlier, since electric kick bikes(scooters) is basically doing what bicycles would do in the same area, plus the speed of commuting. Objects like hooverboards occupy the same niche with the same principles, but are generally not littered across the streets because they are personally owned objects.
So this is not about motorization, this is about undersized streets and rental companies flooding the marked with a product that people will hire for amusement or commute speed. And once hired, it will be left somewhere. US culture will increase the litter of these products, but that would still be the case in other countries due the rental model flooding the marked and not paying for the cost of pick up.
Okay, you need to look at the actual case: 1. War in Europa or Russia? No more import/export of food. By itself its not as bad, because it will free up South American for more export, since Europa currently has some massive imports of South American livestood feed in various forms 2. War in South America? No more import of soy and similar Brazilian megafarmed products, to the degree where USA will experience decades where eating livestock might be only possible once or twice a week. 3. Wartime in Asia will result in a complete collapse of import of various Asian type foods, as well as fish and livestock meat. And since USA is doing some importing, the shortfalls will be felt 4. Warfare in Africa escalates to the point where sea trade is unsustainable? Again: Nations import a lot of things from Africa. From plants, fruits, to meat. And if Africa industrializes more, they will export more, ergo trade embargo is bad. And finally: 5. Warfare in AMERICA? All of the above, since coastal imports to inland is used to maintain agriculture and livestock production.
The true terror of this is not that wars or famine happens. Its that once it hits, anybody importing anything related to agriculture indirectly will be affected. As a Norwegian i know that if Brazil stops exporting we will get a massive shortage of livestock food, because we various Brazilian crops is used as primary livestock feed. On top of that, its known for a fact that the breeds of cattle requires a far higher nutrition range to grow and graze: Since importing various exotic ingredients has been the norm for a long enough time to affect how cattle are breed, and their targets in nutrition/weight/growth
Now, USA is at 150% food sufficiency. Norway is at roughly 50%. USA will handle war and famine far better, but it will still have parts of its agriculture that has gotten used to importing some form of exotic livestock feed to compensate for something.
I think it might be overkill, but its also a solution that can be repeated and automated for the next PC that is setup. It can also be automated to setup PCs inside of the enterprise.
Its complete overkill, but its also a setup that really can't be compromised. Installing new software is as simple as inputting the remote, and doing it. It would be beneficial to setup, merely to replicate the setup later for other computers to reduce maintenance.
Its like every other mining operation: Gear, maintenance, routines and manpower is costs. Anything extracted is a net gain. So once you got enough crew to rotate without hiring more people, enough heavy duty machines. Once mined, possibly refined or extracted your coal competes with the shipping costs to where it wants to go, adjusted for some kind of purity. It can be used to enrich iron or other metals, electricity, and a whole bunch of other options.
Its not even a law, its a norm used by what i assume is a bank or a larger retail chain. Now, there is a good chance it might be based off some law, but "30 units" looks like a internal company police. And won't hold up in court.
Thats true, but a core dilemma is that traditional curing is a drying process. Where the alternative is salt coating and air drying. Possibly less salt and heating to dry. While a lot of meat contains nitrates for preservation or for food colouring.
There is a big difference between a cured ham thats dry by process, and a mixed dough of raw meat thats needs a lot of preservatives to be stored for 1-3 weeks of shelf life from production. There is a even bigger difference between half baked, baked and raw meat dishes intended for long term commercial storage of weeks: Waiting for the customers to arrive at the shelfs and nab em. Its basically a very big dilemma where a lot of food technology and logistics are based around traditional methods intended for completely different types of meat, but modern production chain involves raw meats being stored using similar ingredients to preserve it. On top of that another big issue is that the taste of food degrades as its stored, meaning each step away from raw food will degrade the taste merely by storage. So once you go from smoke dried ham to a half finished dish that contains bacon, merely storing it to sell it reduces taste by such a amount that you can't really use similar recipes to the actual dish. So at some point into the cycle of preserved half cooked food, you need to drown the food in sugar/salt/preservatives/flavor enrichen to compete with its core recipe. Its basically the reason why Frozen Pizza has limited taste, since it needs to be half cooked to be distributed.
I mean, to illustrate a point we should just quote wikipedia: >Curing is any of various food preservation and flavoring processes of foods such as meat, fish and vegetables, by the addition of combinations of salt, nitrates, nitrites,[1] or sugar, with the aim of drawing moisture out of the food by the process of osmosis. >Many curing processes also involve smoking, spicing, or cooking. Dehydration was the earliest form of food curing.[2] Its essentially a process to create dry food, due there existing no proper form of cold storage before modern times. And that is very different from a luxury product like ham being coated and minced into a salt mixture with nitrate because people do not cook and slice ham due family size constraints.
What i find amazing is how this is not a English native language text. There is a few odd formats here and there, a few odd structures. And a really big masturbary focus on "Persian military numbers", written like somebody was dragging their jock strap like a mad man while hammering the keyboards tangents. I don't have a opinion on this text, but i have seen similar expressions used when doing direct translation of various Arabic dialects. What this strikes me as, is that the Text is intended to be a Strong Open, as a verbal piece. Its intended to have emphasis and tonal range on a lot of the concepts, almost sung between those major strokes of the bellowing lungs.
So what i will find amazing is that if you read about Turks talking about Ottomans, Iranians/Iraques about Persia, or their society written dialogues on religion: It follows the same format with the exact same presentation. Its how Arabic society spread its word(s)
Blenders problem was that it was a inhouse 3D editing tool intended for polygonal editing. So what was Blender 2.49 good at? Using hotkeys to edit models. Using textures to modify models. Modifying models. It had enough tools to do primitive animation and physics, but not well presented UI to make the USER use those features. And if you used 2.49 you know that the internal render is crap, but the user interface is atrocious.
Hence 2.50 was a eventually, where a massive project would try to make everything in the suite as impressive as the raw 3D editing was. And going from 2.49, to the beta, to cycles, to whatever the last version i used: I would say their success should be held to unrestrained clapping and cheering. The key remaining problem is that Blender is now a "Advanced 3D package", where the less primary features such as animations still has a terrible UI. But advanced users can't tell that because they have learned it, and gotten used to the quirks. This extends to rendering, physics, and all other tools as well. I hope since they used it they finally added a direct selector to texture painting, instead of randomly having one of 3 possibly windows having a non visible selector.
Could you reference anything? Like, i get the white hat angle where you hack the core and add a pop up. But the way i understood it, as its presented in the media is that your goal as a hacker is to acquire unique information(i.e bank account number+ persona) and then you need a hack to get past the 2 factor authentication. And as the experts know, they are not that secure even if its unique password + offline key generator device Once that is done, the goal is then to empty bank account as far as possible. Which means to 0, or to whatever the credit limitation is. And thats a fairly common occurrence due phising and false webpages, among other things.
But the bank angle? I am not even sure what secure measures there are. Transfer taking a word day might be one of them, for secure addresses. But i don't know any other security measures. I guess i would love to get a idea of the tech level, and the obscurity vs security level.
The problem is that Oslo is: 1. Central administration of Norway, bringing a lot of jobs, boolstering its size and economy 2. A small county in size, meaning there is limited place 3. Various centralization policies have lead to every single national company setting up HQ in Oslo, again making its economy bigger. This has been going on since the railroad and phone lines where properly expanded. 4. Oslo has retained its original "city borders".
So if you combine this, and get cynical you could argue Oslo stretches between Råholt, Skarnes, Askin, Halden, Moss, Tønsberg, Drammen and Hønefoss. This is a area of 7 022,33 km^2 while Oslo county/city/fylke is 480.76 km^2. The problem is that Oslo builds infrastructure insides its border, while feeding jobs and commuting to a area thats 15 times larger. In European or American or Asian measurements this is not a big area, with a lot of residents. But the denial of what Oslo is and its infrastructure is leading to some severe congestion that needs to be solved somehow.
Oslo banning cars is not going to fix this. Railroads, commute stations in other counties and buss networks are not built out to a level where the congestion can solve itself. Oslo county is not cooperating with its surrounding counties to solve long term infrastructure problems or decentralize the economy enough to stop everyone from setting up HQ in Oslo for historical reasons. Banning cars will essentially "delay" the problem for as long as it takes to fill up the new free real estate, and maybe it gets a little better as walking/biking is somewhat effective to increase population density. But the issue will remain as long as people setup HQ in Oslo or corporation, and then their workers need to commute from a nearby county without the infrastructure to just painless go there.
The Norwegian in me sneers when you mention 60 cm thick walls. Why would you do that when you could have that wall contain a double layer insulation of Glava(glasswool) and Isopor(polystyrene foam). And still combine that with the extra thick walls? The entire point of "zero energy houses" as they exist in Norway is to use proper insulating materials to do exactly as you talked about, except this can be applied to any type of home.
The article is also a gigantic black hole, since its all buzzwords. The building is basically a insulated and sealed office space, where things like AC exchange rate of air is worked out to not impact temperature indoors. This is a buzzword we use called a "zero energy house". Which means that when winter comes the house or office space do not necessarily need heating unless its going to be deserted for some time. Additional buzzwords include "recyclable materials", which means the entire wood facade and structure is normal wood. If the building gets left behind or needs to be demolished, its actually possible to salvage a lot of nicely coated wood for different types of usage. Or at the least thats the theory, we will see in the next decades if the coating is strong enough to prevent severe UV damage on the outer layers of the building. "Energy positive" is another. It just means that the sterling engines and solar panels are big enough to supply the building with power, assuming there is a large enough battery in the basement. Being energy positive is a behemoth task, unless the building is a "zero energy house" because heating and AC is suddenly no longer major casts.
I find the buzzword PR article distasteful for failing to present the issue in a simple manner.
So Quanta has the parts and manpower needed to do things like prototype milling? While Apple do not? Not that scale is mentioned, which is imported if you need to do 1000 different prototypes in a reasonable time scale. Thats the gist of it, at the least as Solandri presents it.
No anon, article is terribly transplanted from whatever it originally was. Sitting is bad, so the article says. Standing works fine. What the headline wants to convey, and fails to do: Standing is inferior to walking. But if you are jailed in a office, you can't just walk around. So saying they are overrated is... weird.
This is about long term disease rate for the work force, where the./ headline misses the point so badly i wonder what terrible sensationalist bot wrote it.
Similarity is by itself not a mistake. But generally the way the Youtube algorythm works is that IF you watch something, that thing will taint your viewer log and permanently mark it. So instead of watching something, you click on a bad video, watch a few minutes, exit, and then that users entire catalog is suddenly "The new recommended feature" for quite some time. And this is where the similarity problem comes in: You then get more bad videos from other users because it has similar tags, without any real quality.
The problem with "similar videos" is that the tag system has no way to perceive quality or depth. I might like high quality videos about the chemistry of steel milling, but once i have watched a few i wouldn't be able to stand basic introductions. And because Youtube is youtube, it only length/views/tags to gauge if a video is similar. So it can't tell a introduction or a low level video from a advanced tutorial or video. If you enter a liberal media such as film craft, the problem escalates rapidly, because a lot of people will do basic analyses of the craft, but very few has the vocabulary or critical perception needed to do it properly. You will have analyze of things that survive purely on production values vs pacing, but the youtube algorithm can't understand this, so you get a lot of people doing "babies first analyze of this series" where production values or pacing is never discussed.
Youtube might have replaced things like hobby magazines for specific niches, but its ability to dive into the topics or expand is horrid lacking. You can basically find a video, and then find that the algorithm is incapable of giving you more to watch.
Using a smartphone is a amazing feat of dexterity, because the incremental movements needed to type pixel next to pixel is small.
But you need to examine how the movement goes: You use pinky to middle finger holding the object, or all 4 main fingers to hold it. You then touch type via thumb or pointer. If you use both hands, you don't use the finer muscles in the hand to do incremental adjustments to angle to have more reach and finer movements. So touch typing on a smart phone means you don't get to train the finer adjustments of the muscles in your grip, or all of your fingers.
And you need to compare it to a different activity: I suggest penmanship To use a pen, you need to hold the pen via friction. Lightly yet firm, to not strain the hands.
You use movements of wrist, grip, and fingers.
Primary methods of grip includes thumb, pointer and middle finger holding the pen. Ring and pinky fingers do not get proper usage, but some of the muscles are still used to do full incremental movements to do finer strokes.
On top of this, you can do incremental movements with muscles in your forearm, biceps or shoulders to increase the dexterity and incremental movements. Another activity to compare it to is keyboard typing.
Keyboard typing involves stationing your hands in a resting position, leaving the weight on the bottom of your palms, and then trying to rotate hand and finger joints to use minuscule amounts of force to hit buttons with some spacing.
The obvious downside is that you don't strengthen your wrists or forearms while typing. Meaning you don't get that incremental adjustment of dexterity. Another important thing is that the arm uses the pinky to tighten grip on objects, meaning neither of these 3 activities improve grip.
So to conclude: Touch typing is agile, because of how small things are. But its a small and restrained position, without usage of a longer range of muscles. Its basically all in the fingers. Going by what the article might want to imply(have not read), its that the reduction of penmanship in schools has started impacting young adults finer movements with precise tools for cutting flesh. Or some other change in physical activity has reduce the dexterity you use to manipulate a object with your entire forearm and shoulder.
Slashdot Mirror
And to add to that great silver lining of the post chain:
The problem with the study of nutrition is that its based on a chain of events. Its one thing when a baby is in the womb, where the mothers body is going into full overdrive to create nutrients to stave off deficiency during birth, and eventually staving it off defencies at some later point.
For humans its one thing, because we are at the top of the food chain and we live long. Humans can live long enough to experience long term deficiencies in minerals and vitamins. But we live off the food chain, the food chain lives of the land.
On top of being Apex Predators, Humans are also omnivores. Which means that our evolved bodies need to have adapted to different nutritional needs as we evolved.
Which brings us to a simple issue:
For us to identify a vitamin, you need to successfully identify it in humans and in food. Food can be insects, plants, roots, fish or livestock. We also need to identify that its lacking, and that adding fixes the problem.
So to identify something like Iron or vitamin C is somewhat fast: Malnutrition shows up within half a year at most. B12 shows up within a few years. But what if there is something that shows up in decades? Since nutritional targeting is what it is, and so is food processing, we don't know that we are starving or unbalancing our diets until decades into testing.
Our nutritional knowledge also applies to livestock: What they get as nutrition could be limited by our understanding of nutrition, which affects what humans then acquire by eating said livestock. And this example applies plants as well, since fertile farmland do enjoy fertilizer in some form.
But there is another limiting factor: In nature over ten thousands of years, health can be acquired by natural selection and mutations offering synthesis or reduction in needs of certain vitamins or minerals. But this is not something that can be done in its natural tempo, because its beyond our timescale. We could be starving ourselfs without finding out until decades later.
But this wide issue also applies to diet. Ketosis vs Glycolysis is a fresh example, where Glycolysis is assumed to be somewhat effective, where Ketosis is poorly understood or researched until current modern times.
Nutritional research has been affected by such issues for a very long time, meaning our source of knowledge is poisoned to some degree.
Another issue is digestion: We do know that vitamins and protovitamins are completely different. But we don't know the long term health consequences of moving from soured yeast to beer yeast for industrial baking, nor do we properly understand how human health are impacted by eating less fermented food.
And then the problem becomes that good studies can't be based on our lack of understanding of the deeper unveiled yet revealed systems of nutrition, yet that is what nutritional research is based on.
As we go on we will likely discover amazing things about aging, and its relationship to malnutrition and the digestive system gaining resistance to certain substances.
So basically if you where to build 2 towers or dedicate a landscape to it, you could harvest 1TW directly from the atmosphere?
That do sound pretty great. Why not just build the tower, some receivers, and put some wires from these towers to sell?
And in other film series you Universal's 'Dark Universe'.
They have published 1 okay movie and one terrible movie since 2014. In the same span MARVEL spat out 12 unique movies thats good.
In these movies, each scene thats a part of the 'larger narrative' is mostly terrible scenes which end up ruining the pacing of the movie. Instead of a exciting movie, the possibility of exciting scenes are 'delayed to the next movie' which never comes or delivers on its promise.
So what is going on the MARVEL side of the fence?
The MARVEL films makes money because each film is good.
But there is another benefit: Because of the MCU brand each successive movie basically gets free PR, meaning that each successive "good" movie will continue to cash in on the brand.
This has been tried before with Rocky, Highlander, Pokemon and several other franchises. Its a tried and true concept: People who enjoyed Highlander will watch Highlander II when it lands in theater, making it possible to increase or stabilize revenue.
But the difference between a movie series and MCU is that MCU is based on a franchise that already have the script for a few hundred good movies and storylines. So unlike traditional movie franchises you already have a red line to make several movies. Where movies are written per script, produced standalone, and sequels are made as standalone script with the artistic limitation of being made as a single product.
In the MCU, the framework to make all the movies is already there. The screen writers just have to decide what arc they are going with(Infinity Gauntlet) and then produce that arc, taking other arcs and making them into standalone movies to make the framework for the arc. So far the Infinity Gauntlet Arc has been 15 released movies out of 19 MCU movies.
And that is what makes the MCU into what it is. If you don't know about the source material or look over the list of featured films its not going to be obvious that this has been one large arc.
And i have trouble imaging standalone movies with standalone scripts doing Movie: Movie 19 and not have the wellspring or the structure of the script gone completely dry. Most series have problems making Movie: Movie 2 and even large problems making Movie: Movie 3
Added note: What is funny to me, is that on the movie side MCU is a success. While on the TV side its a disaster that lives purely of the fact MCU have had 19 movies and still more being produced.
On the TV side there has been 11 shows so far, some with enough audience to warrant more than one season. Each of them being produced episode by episode, script by script, with terrible arc progression, terrible budget and poor foresight/planning.
The TV side is EXACTLY what you describe, were its only working because its part of the MCU(despite being mostly terrible).
Thats because 4, 5 and 6 has a plot in each movie on top of the overarching greater storyline. So you end up with 2 layers of storyline, that adds more depth to the movies as you watch them.
It also escalating things that is introduced in the first movie, and go further and further into its concepts.
Where Episode 1 really doesn't do anything but the overarching story, 2 need to have Clone Wars for the lore bulletpoint, and 3 needs to have Anakin turn and the Jedi dead. So 1-3 ends up having one storyline with a few good moments to make a good cinema series. Its a lot like watching a better TV series where you have a arc thats multiple episodes: But only with bigger budget, actual quality, good pre planning. And thats why it works, despite being a lot more sparse about its storyline for its runtime.
1-3 also have a less clear plot, so a summary would quickly turn into a bulletpoint over the trilogy:
1. The emperors storyline
2. Anakin story
3. Obiwan's story
The only discredit i have to 1-3 is that most of the good content ends up being shuffed into the Clone Wars series, where its actually allowed to play out in greater artistic detail. Where you suddenly have entire episodes dedicated to Politics, Sith sheenigans, space pirates, or Clone PTSD.
While i haven't gotten around to Solo yet, so far Rogue One has been the strongest movie StarWarsDisney has made.
While the plot is extremely simple(Lets steal the Death Star Plans), and it takes quite a bit of the movie before it goes anywhere(in terms of pacing), once it they end up on the Palm Beach planet the plot and action kicks into what is a good experience.
7 have a lot of things going on, but nothing pans out, so it doesn't become anything to write home about. Like by destroying the Starkiller planet they should have basically won the war, but then by the next installment the Rebels are suddenly on the ropes against the Last Order giga army.
8 tries to repeat Empire Strikes Back without doing anything to advance the plot, or do a story. And i would suspect that 9 is going to do exactly the same, maybe ending the 7-9 arc in some fashion.
So 7-9 is going to end with repeating the problems with 1-3, but its also going to copy what 4-6 did for its arcs without doing anything to have the some kind of progress.
Its going to end up a lot like a copycat film, where you take elements without understanding WHY or HOW they where applied to make the movie a commercial success.
I would still ask for a source for that.
Recently i had the experience to work with a large variety of battery powered tools of a few different providers. Drills, jackhammers, angle grinders, and several variants of miniature saws. These devices generally are of such a power consumption that once they run they will only be halted by the battery running out.
Now, there are some things to consider when using such tools. One basic idea is that you want to limit your sessions somewhat, to avoid heat damaging the metallurgy in the tools. While the saws blades and angles are replaceable, its still a loss of valuable work time.
The reason for bringing such a item on the agenda is that its very related to the topic: For these kinds of tools they are incapable of halting in operation unless the blade breaks or they run out of power. And what you do get for ditching batteries is that you get larger models with more power: Meaning they cut faster with less resistance.
In damaged batteries, you will see similar effects to what is described in the topic at hand: They will randomly cut in power and halt operation complete. Its a world of difference between the halt and imaging using a angle grider thats weaker.
I think my cause is lost.
I asked about "scooters" or "kick bikes" which is what... barely 1 kg of weight.
Not 10 kg bikes. UK laws for bicycles is i don't even.
Which is what? 10 minutes on a bicycle?
Or I assume 15 minutes on these darned new fangled scooter electric kick bikes?
Are we talking about the same thing?
Because i really really doubt it, especially has it has primary been a children toy alongside skates and rollerblades.
Because its a cultural long term issue that has been delayed to deal with for quite a while.
Basically kick bikes are considered sidewalk worthy by US and British law. Where bicycles has to go on the road, due the same legal history from the early 1900s.
And this isn't the case all over the world, but thats a different issue.
The actual problem is that due the way cities are built, streets are somewhat undersized for actual populated areas. By itself it became this way because legally your options where to bike on the road, drive to work, or walk on the sidewalk. Combined with sidewalk's in USA generally not being structure to being a walkable long path that goes to your destination, combined with light crosses and terrible zebra stripe placement.
Now, if biking on the sidewalk where the norm, you could have had this lawsuit a few decades earlier, since electric kick bikes(scooters) is basically doing what bicycles would do in the same area, plus the speed of commuting. Objects like hooverboards occupy the same niche with the same principles, but are generally not littered across the streets because they are personally owned objects.
So this is not about motorization, this is about undersized streets and rental companies flooding the marked with a product that people will hire for amusement or commute speed. And once hired, it will be left somewhere. US culture will increase the litter of these products, but that would still be the case in other countries due the rental model flooding the marked and not paying for the cost of pick up.
Okay, you need to look at the actual case:
1. War in Europa or Russia? No more import/export of food. By itself its not as bad, because it will free up South American for more export, since Europa currently has some massive imports of South American livestood feed in various forms
2. War in South America? No more import of soy and similar Brazilian megafarmed products, to the degree where USA will experience decades where eating livestock might be only possible once or twice a week.
3. Wartime in Asia will result in a complete collapse of import of various Asian type foods, as well as fish and livestock meat. And since USA is doing some importing, the shortfalls will be felt
4. Warfare in Africa escalates to the point where sea trade is unsustainable? Again: Nations import a lot of things from Africa. From plants, fruits, to meat. And if Africa industrializes more, they will export more, ergo trade embargo is bad.
And finally:
5. Warfare in AMERICA? All of the above, since coastal imports to inland is used to maintain agriculture and livestock production.
The true terror of this is not that wars or famine happens.
Its that once it hits, anybody importing anything related to agriculture indirectly will be affected. As a Norwegian i know that if Brazil stops exporting we will get a massive shortage of livestock food, because we various Brazilian crops is used as primary livestock feed. On top of that, its known for a fact that the breeds of cattle requires a far higher nutrition range to grow and graze: Since importing various exotic ingredients has been the norm for a long enough time to affect how cattle are breed, and their targets in nutrition/weight/growth
Now, USA is at 150% food sufficiency. Norway is at roughly 50%. USA will handle war and famine far better, but it will still have parts of its agriculture that has gotten used to importing some form of exotic livestock feed to compensate for something.
So no article to read, or link to
No benchmark
Summary can't decide if Radeon VII is 7nm or not. At the least not from first glance
WTF anon
I think it might be overkill, but its also a solution that can be repeated and automated for the next PC that is setup.
It can also be automated to setup PCs inside of the enterprise.
Its complete overkill, but its also a setup that really can't be compromised. Installing new software is as simple as inputting the remote, and doing it.
It would be beneficial to setup, merely to replicate the setup later for other computers to reduce maintenance.
Its like every other mining operation:
Gear, maintenance, routines and manpower is costs.
Anything extracted is a net gain. So once you got enough crew to rotate without hiring more people, enough heavy duty machines.
Once mined, possibly refined or extracted your coal competes with the shipping costs to where it wants to go, adjusted for some kind of purity. It can be used to enrich iron or other metals, electricity, and a whole bunch of other options.
So it will be profitable.
Its not even a law, its a norm used by what i assume is a bank or a larger retail chain.
Now, there is a good chance it might be based off some law, but "30 units" looks like a internal company police. And won't hold up in court.
Thats true, but a core dilemma is that traditional curing is a drying process. Where the alternative is salt coating and air drying. Possibly less salt and heating to dry.
While a lot of meat contains nitrates for preservation or for food colouring.
There is a big difference between a cured ham thats dry by process, and a mixed dough of raw meat thats needs a lot of preservatives to be stored for 1-3 weeks of shelf life from production. There is a even bigger difference between half baked, baked and raw meat dishes intended for long term commercial storage of weeks: Waiting for the customers to arrive at the shelfs and nab em.
Its basically a very big dilemma where a lot of food technology and logistics are based around traditional methods intended for completely different types of meat, but modern production chain involves raw meats being stored using similar ingredients to preserve it. On top of that another big issue is that the taste of food degrades as its stored, meaning each step away from raw food will degrade the taste merely by storage. So once you go from smoke dried ham to a half finished dish that contains bacon, merely storing it to sell it reduces taste by such a amount that you can't really use similar recipes to the actual dish.
So at some point into the cycle of preserved half cooked food, you need to drown the food in sugar/salt/preservatives/flavor enrichen to compete with its core recipe. Its basically the reason why Frozen Pizza has limited taste, since it needs to be half cooked to be distributed.
I mean, to illustrate a point we should just quote wikipedia:
>Curing is any of various food preservation and flavoring processes of foods such as meat, fish and vegetables, by the addition of combinations of salt, nitrates, nitrites,[1] or sugar, with the aim of drawing moisture out of the food by the process of osmosis.
>Many curing processes also involve smoking, spicing, or cooking. Dehydration was the earliest form of food curing.[2]
Its essentially a process to create dry food, due there existing no proper form of cold storage before modern times. And that is very different from a luxury product like ham being coated and minced into a salt mixture with nitrate because people do not cook and slice ham due family size constraints.
What i find amazing is how this is not a English native language text. There is a few odd formats here and there, a few odd structures. And a really big masturbary focus on "Persian military numbers", written like somebody was dragging their jock strap like a mad man while hammering the keyboards tangents.
I don't have a opinion on this text, but i have seen similar expressions used when doing direct translation of various Arabic dialects.
What this strikes me as, is that the Text is intended to be a Strong Open, as a verbal piece. Its intended to have emphasis and tonal range on a lot of the concepts, almost sung between those major strokes of the bellowing lungs.
So what i will find amazing is that if you read about Turks talking about Ottomans, Iranians/Iraques about Persia, or their society written dialogues on religion: It follows the same format with the exact same presentation.
Its how Arabic society spread its word(s)
Blenders problem was that it was a inhouse 3D editing tool intended for polygonal editing.
So what was Blender 2.49 good at? Using hotkeys to edit models. Using textures to modify models. Modifying models.
It had enough tools to do primitive animation and physics, but not well presented UI to make the USER use those features.
And if you used 2.49 you know that the internal render is crap, but the user interface is atrocious.
Hence 2.50 was a eventually, where a massive project would try to make everything in the suite as impressive as the raw 3D editing was. And going from 2.49, to the beta, to cycles, to whatever the last version i used: I would say their success should be held to unrestrained clapping and cheering.
The key remaining problem is that Blender is now a "Advanced 3D package", where the less primary features such as animations still has a terrible UI. But advanced users can't tell that because they have learned it, and gotten used to the quirks. This extends to rendering, physics, and all other tools as well.
I hope since they used it they finally added a direct selector to texture painting, instead of randomly having one of 3 possibly windows having a non visible selector.
Could you reference anything? Like, i get the white hat angle where you hack the core and add a pop up.
But the way i understood it, as its presented in the media is that your goal as a hacker is to acquire unique information(i.e bank account number+ persona) and then you need a hack to get past the 2 factor authentication. And as the experts know, they are not that secure even if its unique password + offline key generator device
Once that is done, the goal is then to empty bank account as far as possible. Which means to 0, or to whatever the credit limitation is.
And thats a fairly common occurrence due phising and false webpages, among other things.
But the bank angle?
I am not even sure what secure measures there are. Transfer taking a word day might be one of them, for secure addresses. But i don't know any other security measures.
I guess i would love to get a idea of the tech level, and the obscurity vs security level.
The problem is that Oslo is:
1. Central administration of Norway, bringing a lot of jobs, boolstering its size and economy
2. A small county in size, meaning there is limited place
3. Various centralization policies have lead to every single national company setting up HQ in Oslo, again making its economy bigger. This has been going on since the railroad and phone lines where properly expanded.
4. Oslo has retained its original "city borders".
So if you combine this, and get cynical you could argue Oslo stretches between Råholt, Skarnes, Askin, Halden, Moss, Tønsberg, Drammen and Hønefoss.
This is a area of 7 022,33 km^2 while Oslo county/city/fylke is 480.76 km^2.
The problem is that Oslo builds infrastructure insides its border, while feeding jobs and commuting to a area thats 15 times larger. In European or American or Asian measurements this is not a big area, with a lot of residents. But the denial of what Oslo is and its infrastructure is leading to some severe congestion that needs to be solved somehow.
Oslo banning cars is not going to fix this. Railroads, commute stations in other counties and buss networks are not built out to a level where the congestion can solve itself. Oslo county is not cooperating with its surrounding counties to solve long term infrastructure problems or decentralize the economy enough to stop everyone from setting up HQ in Oslo for historical reasons.
Banning cars will essentially "delay" the problem for as long as it takes to fill up the new free real estate, and maybe it gets a little better as walking/biking is somewhat effective to increase population density.
But the issue will remain as long as people setup HQ in Oslo or corporation, and then their workers need to commute from a nearby county without the infrastructure to just painless go there.
The Norwegian in me sneers when you mention 60 cm thick walls. Why would you do that when you could have that wall contain a double layer insulation of Glava(glasswool) and Isopor(polystyrene foam). And still combine that with the extra thick walls?
The entire point of "zero energy houses" as they exist in Norway is to use proper insulating materials to do exactly as you talked about, except this can be applied to any type of home.
The article is also a gigantic black hole, since its all buzzwords.
The building is basically a insulated and sealed office space, where things like AC exchange rate of air is worked out to not impact temperature indoors. This is a buzzword we use called a "zero energy house". Which means that when winter comes the house or office space do not necessarily need heating unless its going to be deserted for some time.
Additional buzzwords include "recyclable materials", which means the entire wood facade and structure is normal wood. If the building gets left behind or needs to be demolished, its actually possible to salvage a lot of nicely coated wood for different types of usage. Or at the least thats the theory, we will see in the next decades if the coating is strong enough to prevent severe UV damage on the outer layers of the building.
"Energy positive" is another. It just means that the sterling engines and solar panels are big enough to supply the building with power, assuming there is a large enough battery in the basement. Being energy positive is a behemoth task, unless the building is a "zero energy house" because heating and AC is suddenly no longer major casts.
I find the buzzword PR article distasteful for failing to present the issue in a simple manner.
How does it lose information if changes the information it finds?
That sounds pretty odd
So Quanta has the parts and manpower needed to do things like prototype milling? While Apple do not?
Not that scale is mentioned, which is imported if you need to do 1000 different prototypes in a reasonable time scale.
Thats the gist of it, at the least as Solandri presents it.
No anon, article is terribly transplanted from whatever it originally was.
Sitting is bad, so the article says. Standing works fine.
What the headline wants to convey, and fails to do: Standing is inferior to walking. But if you are jailed in a office, you can't just walk around. So saying they are overrated is... weird.
This is about long term disease rate for the work force, where the ./ headline misses the point so badly i wonder what terrible sensationalist bot wrote it.
Similarity is by itself not a mistake. But generally the way the Youtube algorythm works is that IF you watch something, that thing will taint your viewer log and permanently mark it. So instead of watching something, you click on a bad video, watch a few minutes, exit, and then that users entire catalog is suddenly "The new recommended feature" for quite some time. And this is where the similarity problem comes in: You then get more bad videos from other users because it has similar tags, without any real quality.
The problem with "similar videos" is that the tag system has no way to perceive quality or depth. I might like high quality videos about the chemistry of steel milling, but once i have watched a few i wouldn't be able to stand basic introductions. And because Youtube is youtube, it only length/views/tags to gauge if a video is similar. So it can't tell a introduction or a low level video from a advanced tutorial or video.
If you enter a liberal media such as film craft, the problem escalates rapidly, because a lot of people will do basic analyses of the craft, but very few has the vocabulary or critical perception needed to do it properly. You will have analyze of things that survive purely on production values vs pacing, but the youtube algorithm can't understand this, so you get a lot of people doing "babies first analyze of this series" where production values or pacing is never discussed.
Youtube might have replaced things like hobby magazines for specific niches, but its ability to dive into the topics or expand is horrid lacking. You can basically find a video, and then find that the algorithm is incapable of giving you more to watch.
Using a smartphone is a amazing feat of dexterity, because the incremental movements needed to type pixel next to pixel is small.
But you need to examine how the movement goes: You use pinky to middle finger holding the object, or all 4 main fingers to hold it. You then touch type via thumb or pointer. If you use both hands, you don't use the finer muscles in the hand to do incremental adjustments to angle to have more reach and finer movements. So touch typing on a smart phone means you don't get to train the finer adjustments of the muscles in your grip, or all of your fingers.
And you need to compare it to a different activity: I suggest penmanship
To use a pen, you need to hold the pen via friction. Lightly yet firm, to not strain the hands.
You use movements of wrist, grip, and fingers.
Primary methods of grip includes thumb, pointer and middle finger holding the pen. Ring and pinky fingers do not get proper usage, but some of the muscles are still used to do full incremental movements to do finer strokes.
On top of this, you can do incremental movements with muscles in your forearm, biceps or shoulders to increase the dexterity and incremental movements.
Another activity to compare it to is keyboard typing.
Keyboard typing involves stationing your hands in a resting position, leaving the weight on the bottom of your palms, and then trying to rotate hand and finger joints to use minuscule amounts of force to hit buttons with some spacing.
The obvious downside is that you don't strengthen your wrists or forearms while typing. Meaning you don't get that incremental adjustment of dexterity.
Another important thing is that the arm uses the pinky to tighten grip on objects, meaning neither of these 3 activities improve grip.
So to conclude: Touch typing is agile, because of how small things are. But its a small and restrained position, without usage of a longer range of muscles. Its basically all in the fingers.
Going by what the article might want to imply(have not read), its that the reduction of penmanship in schools has started impacting young adults finer movements with precise tools for cutting flesh. Or some other change in physical activity has reduce the dexterity you use to manipulate a object with your entire forearm and shoulder.