It boils down to getting less range for a given payload for any given aircraft. You can exchange less payload for more range until you have nothing but pilots.
It seems to get equivalent power you need to either exchange a third or so of your range or a significant portion of cargo or a mixture of both.
Hydrocarbons do indeed have significantly more energy density and the benefit that once you’ve used them the weight of the fuel goes away giving you less work to do as your fuel runs out.
I recommend citizen journalists Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak who produce a twice-weekly media deconstruction on their podcast NoAgendaShow.com
There are no ads or corporate sponsors or outside influences -- and never will be. The podcast has run nearly 12 years strong and it has been 100% listener supported.
John C. Dvorak has in the past been a crank and admitted troll. Until I see public repentance, I recommend against staking one’s reputation on anything coming out of Dvorak.
Source: Pick an article from the pcmag.com archives.
No, it isn't. However, let's assume it is. If you don't pay your (separate and presumably uncontroversial) federal taxes, you become a felon and legally disenfranchised. It becomes clear this is all a minor accounting detail.
Do we have any evidence that non-citizens voting is an actual problem, or are you just spreading FUD?
The GP has linked some well sourced articles about how voter ID laws have been used for primarily racist purposes in the US. Do you have any evidence that supports another narrative?
11% of U.S. citizens – or more than 21 million Americans – do not have government-issued photo identification.
These voters are disproportionately low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Such voters more frequently have difficulty obtaining ID, because they cannot afford or cannot obtain the underlying documents that are a prerequisite to obtaining government-issued photo ID card.
I grew up in a poor, predominantly black inner-city. I and everyone I knew had an ID card, if not just to buy alcohol.
People who don't participate in our society enough to acquire basic documentation required for not living on the streets are overwhelmingly not interested in voting (this accounts for a sliver of the roughly half of the nation that didn't bother to participate in the last presidential election.) If you have the means and will to visit a poll booth, you have it to get an ID, unless there are legitimately disqualifying circumstances. If you believe this isn't the case, you should be lobbying explicitly to get these people ID's more easily, not to remove the requirement at the poll booth. This documentation is already required for virtually everything else; these (hypothetical) people need your help.
This is not a difficult topic, nor is it a very nuanced one; voter ID laws in the United States are and have been overwhelmingly racist. The answers to your questions are very much easily at hand, and we don't need to argue in ignorance. I understand it can be frustrating to see evidence that you are unprepared for; yet in order to have substantive conversations, we must be ready for such evidence, and consider it when it is present.
That's just propaganda based on speculation about what the "other side" intends with voter ID laws. People want voter ID laws so that non citizens can't vote. This is the reason why many developed countries around the world have some form of voter ID.
Of course the desires of a few obscure people are irrelevant to the actual merits of voter ID. There are some Democrats who support immigration because they hate white people and want to "Brown" the country. Does that mean immigration is automatically a bad thing? Of course not.
Policies must be judged on their merits, not the reasons people support them.
Generally speaking, there is a lack of vision at Apple that has slowly deflated since Jobs has passed.
Jony Ive's departure to start a private design firm is confirmation of such, despite Apple being his 'primary' client.
One has to wonder what Apple would be like if Forstall was still there. People should remember it was his team that won the internal contest for the iPhone interface. And it was Jobs' willingness to create internal competition that brought the best out in his employees and the company.
Tim's runs Apple with the same kind of unchallenged vision that allowed George Lucas to produce Episodes 1, 2 and 3 without any kind of creative push-back.
It will stagnate until new hands take control.
It's a cycle. All life is.
How soon Apple's cycle turns upwards towards innovation remains to be seen.
A very smart question, and a legitimate concern as well.
This is precisely why I am generally against ML / AI in use to make important decisions, from what your insurance rate "should" be to how many taxes "need" to be collected.
For what it's worth, I think ML / AI will fall by the wayside when -- and only when -- companies realize it's human learning and natural intelligence, when grouped together -- run in parallel -- that is ultimately a more effective pattern-finder that will produce more meaningful data.
Ever notice how fast a group of internet vigilantes can 'doxx' someone? What if that was turned on other problems? That's real human intelligence in action.
>"Evidence suggests exposure to particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <2.5 μm (PM2.5) may increase the risk for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. Whether PM2.5 alters brain structure and accelerates the preclinical neuropsychological processes remains unknown. "
I'm sure air pollution is pretty bad for you but this seems statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Great headline for New Yorkers who need something else to be afraid of.
Your quote is only from first half of the abstract... You haven't even quoted any statistics, where are you getting "statistically insignificant" from? The article itself shows that there is an association between AD and long-term PM2.5. See below for some actual statistical findings:
"In multilevel structural equation models, PM2.5 was associated with greater declines in immediate recall and new learning, but no association was found with decline in delayed-recall or composite scores. For each interquartile increment (2.81 μg/m3) of PM2.5, the annual decline rate was significantly accelerated by 19.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.9% to 36.2%] for Trials 1–3 and 14.8% (4.4% to 24.9%) for List B performance, adjusting for multiple potential confounders. Long-term PM2.5 exposure was associated with increased Alzheimer’s disease pattern similarity scores, which accounted for 22.6% (95% CI: 1% to 68.9%) and 10.7% (95% CI: 1.0% to 30.3%) of the total adverse PM2.5 effects on Trials 1–3 and List B, respectively. The observed associations remained after excluding incident cases of dementia and stroke during the follow-up, or further adjusting for small-vessel ischaemic disease volumes. Our findings illustrate the continuum of PM2.5 neurotoxicity that contributes to early decline of immediate free recall/new learning at the preclinical stage, which is mediated by progressive atrophy of grey matter indicative of increased Alzheimer’s disease risk, independent of cerebrovascular damage."
For a laymen like myself, I fail to see how this is anything more than additional evidence for Pavlovian response. Are you an "expert" when you learn that a specific pattern of actions results in a reward? That's all that's going on here -- lick the correct water spout according to the pattern of flashing lights, get a reward.
How about an MRI of a newbie in flight school and an MRI of a seasoned pilot. What does that show in terms of neural development and associated pathways? What does the newbie's brain look like after extensive training? Can you measure neural pathways over many years and see how they grow or change?
Requiring commenters to assume good faith and attack the strongest possible version of the argument is a wonderful tool to keep discussion civil and productive.
I don't see how this can possibly by applied to the internet at large which is absolutely full of loud evil people operating in bad faith.
HN is a large enough sample that I don't think it's so different from humans in general, including internet humans in general. If that's right, then the differences you're talking about are mostly contextual.
In this context, we do much better by practicing the guidelines in relation to everyone, even article authors. The point is not that we owe them that, but that we owe ourselves that, because it's how we can maintain our community together.
I respectfully disagree that internet humans are a representative sample of humans or that HN humans represent a sample of internet humans. In both cases the sample isn't random.
Perhaps overly optimistically I believe both samples are on average better than the overall population. People that have access to an internet connection have on average a better chance of also having access to an education. People that read hacker news are on average more likely to be the type who have the desire to read and comprehend a topic more so than the average person who often desires no more than a shallow understanding of what they believe will directly effect themselves and their fortunes.
I do think we often speak more frankly OF people than TO them even when being civil. I can think of a fair number of people where honest dialogue regarding them or their ideas would be at best insulting no matter how neutrally one proposed to conduct one self. Wherein these people literally promote evil not speaking plainly is a greater ill than being unkind.
Article's written by such folks are literally all over the net but rarely if ever appear on the main page for Hacker News. You have I'm sure more insight than I about whether they are submitted in the first place. I guess you can say its practicable to be decent to one another in an environment composed by a great than average concentration of decent people wherein all the really indecent people are either discouraged from entering in the first place or excluded thereafter.
An ad to prop up big pharma by suggesting that people cut their opioid use by 75%?
Lets assume that this is an ad to prop up big pharma. Something between 1 of the 2 following extremes happens.
1. Every opioid user takes up meditation, and is able to reduce their opioid use by 75%. This would generally be considered a very good thing, even though it would cost big pharma 75% of their opioid profits.
2. The woman in the article is the only person in the world with this reported success, nothing changes.
Are you suggesting that forces at play are hoping that the second happens, yet all the lawsuits and criminal investigations against opioid manufacturers and distributors will go away, in part due to articles like this, despite the lack of change in numbers?
For medications under patent, it really doesn't matter if the standard dose is 10mg or 100mg, the standard dose will have the chosen price. Since they sometimes have to sell both dosages at two different prices per mg, they also need bribes to try to make pill splitting illegal either in general or at least in medicare. With opioids "additives to prevent abuse" are also a great way to prevent pill splitting.
I should probably add that no matter how jaded one is, the field of applying meditation to pain in Western medicine predates any newer interests by big pharma. Jon Kabat-Zinn has some good research stretching back to 1980.
Exactly! Which is why we need to be extremely prudent and not assume we can pollute without any major impacts. If the flashlight is poor, we should crawl, not run inside the cave.
I have literally just quoted the original article and the current data. I didn't state any opinion but apparently this is enough for people to disagree.
I think it is interesting in itself to read predictions made thirty years ago for the next thirty years and compare them with actual data. What I get from it is that the analysis was fundamentally correct- temperatures have kept increasing; but I also see a tendency to overconfidence and exaggeration: the source says that the most conservative estimates put the warming by 2018 between 1 and 7 degrees- even if it's Fahrenheit it literally means that we're at the lower end of the "most conservative estimates".
We are way worse at understanding how the effects of global temperature rise will manifest than we are at estimating those changes. That is coming to pass now - pollinators disappearing that could collapse ecosystems are just one example. We should not be arguing about how fast we are falling once we step off the cliff.
The digital version of prep-er style hoarding for the not-far-off-inevitable apocalypse.
Love the idea to make it run on simple 8-bit CPUs that will be scavenged Fallout-style, but seems to presume that no 'newer' technology would survive and be functional.
His idea presumes not that you can't scavenge newer technology, but that we can't replicate, repair, and manufacture more of it. Computers are built with computers. Advanced computers were built with less advanced ones. Sure, we can try to use some of what we found that survived, but will we be able to build manufacturing to build a modern processor with what we find that still works and the expertise we still have?
If we can't manufacture new smartphones, we need to have a baseline of computer to develop new computers that can eventually develop computers that can develop smartphones. Essentially he's proposing that if we lose our societal ability to compute advanced things, that we be able to fall back to the Z80 rather than the abacus.
Not sure I'm totally sold on it here, but it's an interesting topic to say the least.
The standards for a clean room to manufacture a 1980s home computer CPU or modern lower-tech microcontroller are far, far less stringent that the clean rooms for a 7nm or 10nm part. The photolithography equipment you need is far less precise and far more common. There are a lot more fab cranking out IoT device chips than Xeons.
I would imagine hitting the weight limit of traditional aircraft very quickly to get the same output of power.
oil's energy per square inch still can't be beat.