See? In the U.S., many small cars which would be able to tow some serious loads, are not rated at all for towing. If they were, people would not use that argument very often. But apparently, in the U.S. mind, non-trucks are not able to tow.

If you can't sell off your old car at a decent price (and your car dealership also has the lot full of them), your calculation for the next truck has to include a higher deterioration, which makes buying your next truck more expensive. And financing the truck with a loan also might get harder, because your bank might also look into the resale value of your truck, because if they impound it, they don't want to sell it at too much of a loss.

Statistics. If you see a work trailer only on 1% of the trucks out there, you can be statistically sure that only 1% of all trucks are actually using their towing capacity.

I never understood the towing capacity argument. My tiny compact with a 1.6 liter Diesel engine has a towing capacity of 3400 pounds.

The conservation laws are statistical, at least to a degree. Local apparent violations can be OK, provided the system as a whole absolutely complies.

There's no question that if the claim was as appears that the conservation laws would be violated system-wide, which is a big no-no.

So we need to look for alternative explanations.

The most obvious one is that the results aren't being honestly presented, that there's so much wishful thinking that the researchers are forcing the facts to fit their theory. (A tendency so well known, that it's even been used as the basis for fictional detectives.)

Never trust results that are issued in a PR statement before a paper. But these days, it's increasingly concerning that you can't trust the journals.

The next possibility is an unconsidered source of propulsion. At the top of the atmosphere, there are a few candidates, but whether they'd impart enough energy is unclear to me.

The third possibility is that the rocket imparted more energy than considered, so the initial velocity was incorrectly given.

The fourth possibility is that Earth's gravity (which is non-uniform) is lower than given in the calculations, so the acceleration calculations are off.

When dealing with tiny quantities that can be swamped by experimental error, then you need to determine if it has been. At least, after you've determined there's a quantity to examine.

I don't know about real Macs, but I have a Hackintosh that's ... um, OSX 10.8, on a midrange i7 with 8GB RAM and a fast SSD, and even doing nothing much (file manager, system settings and the like, no browser) it was sluggish to occasionally painful. Gave the system 32GB and suddenly it was much better.

If a version of OSX however-many-years-old is that bad with 8GB, I can't imagine current-OSX being pleasant.

Wrong. It is not the cause of Global Warming, and it is not caused by Global Warming. So far you would be right. But it is a problem whose consequences get worse due to Global Warming. So yes, it has to do with Global Warming.

iPhone users don’t have to care, they’re not using the RAM overconsumption shit sandwich of Android+Chrome.

As is so often the case, the non iPhone users wrongly consider their pachydermic use cases to be EVERYONE’s use cases.

8Gb is more than enough for my mother’s MB Air. She only uses Safari, iMessage and Pages. That’s many tasks as Apple correctly said and she does not need a pompous self entitled PC Gamer “journalist” with slovenly multiple tab habits to tell her that she should have paid $200 more for her Mac.

My Mac’s have more memory, but then I run multiple VM’s and don’t need the advice of a pompous self entitled PC Gamer “journalist” to know how much RAM I need either.

So are Stanford researchers:
https://youtu.be/HaaZ8ss-HP4

You are not here. You are at a place where a back-of-the-envelope calculation states is the minimum required. The real thing is probably at least twice as large.

What I've noticed more than that... over the past year or so, a vast uptick in the number of auto-generated videos. These drag together a lot of readily-available text and images on the nominal topic, so pass for "real" -- but the giveaway is that the narrator is text-to-speech, not a human. (It'll make mistakes like saying "one, six hundred" for "1,600".)

All such channels I've encountered have MILLIONS of subscribers, MILLIONS of rapidly-acquired views, but very few comments. (Like, 12M views in a week, but only 30 comments.)

I've concluded that these videos exist so that the channel owner can use another bot to generate millions of views and a whole lot of the shared ad revenue.

Which is probably starting to bleed Youtube beyond what they're used to.

And yes, probably because of the high view counts, those channels occasionally dominate my recommends (which are otherwise pretty good).

In California, it looks like this has been on the books since 1943...

Reaching Mars requires at least planetary escape velocity (11.2 km/s). That means you need a three stage rocket. Usually, the lower stage is about five times the next one. Starting from Mars requires only one stage (escape velocity 5.0 km/s). But still, you need a rocket large enough to carry a fully loaded ICBM as payload to get this one to Mars. A very small ICBM like the Midgetman weighs about 17 metric tons, the usual sized Minuteman twice that. Carry this one on a three stage rocket, your first stage has to have about 125 times the size of a Midgetman or Minuteman, thus between 2000 and 4000 metric tons. This would easily be in the size range of the Saturn V (2200 to 2900 metric tons).

In fact, the Atlas Centaur which carried Mariner 6 and 7 to Mars, weighted 136 metric tons while carrying just 400 kg of payload. At this ratio, we would need more than 300 times the payload, hence a rocket able to carry an ICBM to Mars would weigh between 6000 and 12000 metric tons or four times Saturn V.

Here's the lyrics to a fairly typical, average kinda tune:

We used to swim the same moonlight waters
Oceans away from the wakeful day

My fall will be for you - My fall will be for you My love will be in you If you be the one to cut me I will bleed forever
Scent of the sea before the waking of the world
Brings me to thee
Into the blue memory

My fall will be for you - My fall will be for you My love will be in you If you be the one to cut me I will bleed forever
Into the blue memory

A siren from the deep came to me
Sang my name my longing
Still I write my songs about that dream of mine
Worth everything I may ever be

The Child will be born again
That siren carried him to me
First of them true loves
Singing on the shoulders of an angel
Without care for love ‘n loss

Bring me home or leave me be
My love in the dark heart of the night
I have lost the path before me
The one behind will lead me

Take me
Cure me
Kill me
Bring me home
Every way
Every day
Just another loop in the hangman’s noose

Take me, cure me, kill me, bring me home
Every way, every day
I keep on watching us sleep

Relive the old sin of Adam and Eve
Of you and me
Forgive the adoring beast

Redeem me into childhood
Show me myself without the shell
Like the advent of May
I’ll be there when you say
Time to never hold our love
-------

But there's next to no repetition in it.