Not much new in electric motors which drive the car... okay, I'll grant you that. The basic concept of the electric motor has remained the same since they were invented. But a world of difference in battery storage, power management, and charging capabilities. That is all the special sauce that makes them feasible in the modern day. Not to mention all the self-driving features they put into it. That's a complex modern computer algorithm if there ever was one.

I'm not a Tesla fanboi, but their cars are not a simple battery with some wheels and a motor which could have been done 100 years ago. That ancient car is analogous to a golf cart, minus the plastic pieces. You are correct, that is not modern or high tech in any way. Tesla is clearly more than just that, so some credit where credit is due.

I assumed that number was in reference only to its Model 3 production, which was the one they were expecting to ramp up dramatically. It doesn't explicitly say, so you could be right. Could be interpreted either way, I guess. That's modern journalism for you...

And not just people of color! I am a white guy with a very generic name. I've met several different people with my same name on a number of occasions. One guy with my name plays in the NFL. One time, I rented a car from an airport at the same exact time as another person with my name, which caused a massive headache as they got our paperwork mixed up. There's even another person with my name in the same rural town as me, population circa 15k.

So, I guess I'm pretty glad I don't live in Indiana. I would actually be pretty surprised if I don't have a "twin" out there somewhere born on the same day. JFC, what a bad way to trim voter roles...

Interesting insights, and I won't disagree with those conclusions, as I am not an expert in the field, nor have I read the actual journal article.

I will, however, point out that the purpose of the trial phase they were in was not to demonstrate efficacy, but to demonstrate the safety of the procedure. I would presume that many of the criticisms/questions you raise will be studied more thoroughly in the next phase. It would not be the first time that a drug or treatment was found to be safe, but mostly useless.

I agree it is way too early to get excited yet, but then again "Potential anti-aging therapy found to be safe in clinical trials, and despite some hints that it may also work well, many questions linger as to the actual efficacy" doesn't make a good clickbaity headline...

That is a really good idea. Never would have thought of that myself. Conversely, I have thought that it would be really nice to be able to push the iPad display to a projector or other screen on a local network. That could be useful when I want to show off some photos (which would be nice to push to the TV), or give a powerpoint presentation, etc.

I actually use my laptop for parallel programming. That is to say, it is a bit crufty. I have an iPad 2 that I still use. I keep it on the end table by the couch. I use it for checking email (but usually not writing unless it will be very sort), light browsing, and generally killing time with a crossword puzzle or some such. It's essentially replaced the pile of magazines most people used to have there instead. I supposed I could get a netbook or light-duty laptop for the same purpose, but I won't spend the money until the iPad breaks and forces the issue.

And, just to make a point of order. Just because a janitor is cleared doesn't mean it is okay for them to access classified information that they have no business knowing. Ideally, a janitor should not know any classified information. Their schedules should be known, and whiteboards should be erased/covered, documents stored safely, etc, when they come in. They have to have a clearance to be in the building, and to know that they are trustworthy if they ever do accidentally interrupt a meeting or overhear a conversation or some such. But a janitor has pretty much ZERO 'need-to-know' any specific information at all, and for all practical purposes, other employees should treat a janitor as an uncleared person.

Disagree... Bad finances can get your clearance scuttled before it begins, but generally in those cases we are talking about people with gambling debts, multiple bankruptcies, credit card debts, and other more-or-less self-imposed problems that suggest a possible lack of impulse control. Is it possible that someone gets into financial trouble and owes a ton of money through no real fault of their own? Sure. And the process might unfairly target them. But the fact remains that, fair or not, someone who owes more money than they can expect to make on their job will likely be a security risk if given access to valuable information. It's not a perfect system, but allowing people with bad debt to get security clearances isn't likely to improve the situation any... Simply being poor is not a problem, or they'd never be able to find janitors in some of the secure buildings.

I also dispute your assertion that the well-to-do get sailed through. Maybe if you are in the inner circle of the executive branch or something you can get one in short order, but I know one guy who has currently been waiting over a year to hear back anything. No financial issues or debt other than a reasonable mortgage. Nice family, goes to church every Sunday, has a good job. Never did any drugs, doesn't even drink, no black sheep in his immediate family that would cause any problems. One of the most trustworthy and dependable guys I know. His employer even paid for the 'fast-track' which is supposed to cut a few months off. And he's heard crickets. So... counterpoint.

Yeah, I kind of agree. This study should be corrected for the fact that people who value themselves more lowly in relation to others (read: people prone to depression) would probably also be the types to not accept a larger 'reward' in relation to others. The comparison of self vs. others seems to be an inherent part of the study, and would self select depressed people. In other words, it's a study designed not to find selfless people and correlate that with depression, but a study that simply finds depressed people that won't even accept a trivial 'reward' that is bigger than someone else's.

Yeah. I live in a small town of about 15000 people, with a large and stable employer, which has led to a a very strange and hot real estate market for a place 50 miles away from anywhere.

When I was shopping for a home, I made a habit of inspecting the cabinet hinges in every room and bathroom. I don't care about a shiny new granite countertop. Cheap $0.50 hinges means corners were cut, and the place will likely fall apart. Nice Blum hinges on even the smallest cabinet? That's a winner. I am sure there are other things to look at too, but hinges worked for me pretty well as a 'tell'.

Close, but I see it slightly differently.

The problem scientists have is a lack of a public voice over their own research. How many times have we watched two pundits on the television 'debate' anthropogenic global warming? I don't know about you, but I quite frankly don't trust Tucker Carlson NOR Rachel Maddow to really present the science in any kind of accurate way. That goes for any 'political' issue, not just AGW. By the time it gets to the mass public airwaves, any study is long separated from those who wrote it, and it is subject to the biased interpretations of partisan hacks who aren't trained to know what they are talking about, or even recognize what the study's purpose might have been.

Example: Suppose I test out a new numerical algorithm for oceanic climate modeling. I want to look at diffusion rates across ocean strata, and explore the effect this has on the overall result o the simulation, namely atmospheric transport, temperature, carbon content and the like. Suppose I run a bunch of cases, each with a somewhat different approach to this problem, and publish the results compared to historical data and with projections from each. Suppose one of those simulations shows dramatic and irreversible warming at the surface within the next ten years, and another shows a more or less stable surface environment for the next 50 years. Does it matter which one, I the author, think is correct? Or if I think both of these are extreme cases that are unlikely to be true, but are merely demonstrating the bounds of potential outcomes by varying a single parameter? Does it matter that my primary point may have simply been that some unknown factor could have dramatic effects on the path of global climate, and that we need to further study and understand this effect? Or does it only matter that I produced some computer simulations that people can argue about out of context on the TV? And nobody will bother to invite me on to explain these results because, well, that doesn't benefit any of the talking heads that make those decisions.

TL;DR: Scientists need to better interface with the public. Easier said than done, but I believe that is the crux of the problem.

It might be the policy of your employer, or in your specific line of work. But it's not a general policy. I was asked to be judicious and not talk about it loudly in public places and such when I got mine, but it was clear that it wasn't a "secret" or cause for my clearance being pulled. That said, they can make whatever they want a specific requirement for particular people or different fields of work, so it is entirely possible that is/was true for you.

If that is the case, then congratulations on holding to the terms of your clearance so closely. I'm sure they won't analyze any of your social media posts and bring it up in your next security review... I mean, they might or might not, but it seems like a needless risk.

"Executive privilege" only means that members of the executive branch (or former members, presumably) cannot be compelled to testify about the conversations and decisions they have made in their role as a member of the executive branch. It doesn't mean you can't volunteer the info, which is what Comey has done.

A thousand times this. Mod parent up.

"Leaking" the contents of an unclassified memo that you wrote is no different that simply calling the press and saying "Hey, I had a private conversation with Trump about xyz". It just carries a bit more weight when it is written up and dated appropriately. If you aren't divulging classified info, then there is absolutely nothing illegal about publishing it. Unlike what Snowden did....

I agree nuclear is a viable, and necessary source for the future. I also agree that wind is overblown (pardon the bad pun). I wouldn't say it so bluntly or insult people who may not know better, but that's not why I am commenting.

The one aspect of wind power that I rarely see mentioned, including in your post, is that it is absolutely the least efficient in terms of power output/acreage required. Even if you count areas around coal mines and oil fields that are essentially unlivable, they do not come close to wind. Arguably, this is less important than greenhouse gases, and doesn't matter so much for local supplemental production and such. Wind power certainly has a role in the future. But I think it is disingenuous to switch to a source that would require us to monopolize so much of the landscape. All those windmills in remote valleys would require roads and infrastructure to service them. We're basically talking about wholesale destruction of pristine environments on a scale that coal and oil couldn't come close to matching.

FOr those who think I'm exaggerating, consider that wind currently generates less than 10% of our power needs, and many of the most suitable locations for them are already well-developed (See: Kansas, Texas panhandle). We'd have to either go massively offshore, which is possible but has it's own problems, or build an order of magnitude more of them in less than ideal locations, spoiling millions of acres of land. If it were the only option, I could get on board, but with nuclear available.... why on earth would you do that?