Oxford looked for them, but the primary outcome measure we're looking at only takes into account symptomatic cases.

I know you're being cheeky, but it seems about right.

70% cheaper is a good estimate of the difference: pretty easy to culture and purify a viral vector.

And this is the difference between refrigerated transport stable for 6 months vs. requiring -80C cold storage for Pfizer.

1 million copper posts.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/semi...

No. 0.8V at 20,000A. It takes quite an exotic interconnect.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/semi...

> Since there's no additional infrastructure costs, they can sell the exact same service in some poor backwater village in South America, Africa, East-Asia, etc. for $0.50/month and still make a profit, since the infrastructure would otherwise be going mostly unused until it orbitted back over wealthy areas.

Just a nit: there's all the uplink & network service, billing, and other go-to-market infrastructure elsewhere, too, not to mention marketing, etc. The satellites are an important and the most expensive part, but there are still additional infrastructure costs.

That's brilliant: who needs a mobile phone if you're never mobile. :P Apple better look out for how prevalent a trend this is going to be.

Apple desired these devices destroyed because they were not in saleable condition and they didn't want cheaper but dubious quality phones competing against their flagship product. Apple could have destroyed them themselves, easily, but wanted to pay a third party to have materials reclaimed. The third party took Apple's payment -AND- sold them into consumer channels.

It's not exactly the same. Ginsburg didn't get sick from / die from something that she mocked as being no threat and personally mismanaged, for instance. Also, Ginsburg was classy and deserved class returned to her in turn. Trump, OTOH...

Eh.

> every version (pre-76 I guess based on what I hear) was better than the last

Fallout 1 & 2 were awesome.

Fallout 3 lost some of the feel but brought a more polished experienced, and was probably a net benefit.

FO:NV was very, very, very good. Nearly as good as FO 1 & 2 in writing, storyline, etc, and much better in other ways. Perhaps this was the peak of the series.

Fallout 4 was pretty weak; not in the same league as any of the previous games IMO. Maybe for some people the base construction, etc, aspects add enough of a plus to not be completely disappointed, but I was.

And, yes, FO:76 has not gone well.

One day, you'll be old, and there will be all kinds of things in the world about how to pay and buy things that don't make so much sense anymore.

And you won't think so quickly anymore.

And then maybe someone will say all the right things for you to think that there's a big problem, and trigger fear, which will make you even slower to think. I guess you'll have it coming?

My dad's 82. He was a pioneer of computing. He was brilliant and raised himself up from poverty to technology leadership; honor societies, distinguished technical career, etc. He taught me everything I know about finance (a lot). As a kid the last thing I'd ever think of him was that he was credulous or stupid. But in the recent couple of years, there's been some incidents (tech support scam, and fake-browser-your-computer-is-pwned-give-us-money scam) that have come dangerously close to succeeding, and may very well have if I wasn't around to answer questions.

Given that both the US and Russia have operated nuclear reactors in space, #1 is no big problem. #2, also-- you can make a fuel assembly last a loooong time. Even the primitive BES-5 based on mid-60's technology produced 3kW of electricity constantly for over 6 months in space-- this is a heck of a lot of power--- and lifetime was mostly limited by the lifetime of the thermocouples rather than the fuel assembly.

I think you're a little optimistic about the ability of a single small reactor to wreck a whole world. If you could get them there, you could drop every nuclear weapon and scatter every bit of high-level waste we have on Mars, and it wouldn't be anywhere near the biggest obstacle to habitability-- it'd be rounding error.

I am not sure this is a good idea, but for other reasons: there's science that may be precluded forever by having had man-made nuclear reactions happen there. On the other hand, long duration missions without nuclear power are a non-starter.

> If you bring processed fuel, then there's the potential of a rocket launch accident and contaminating thousands of miles of land and water.

Reactor fuel for a reactor that has never started is (slighty) -less- radioactive than the uranium that we dig out of the ground. It's only after you've run the reactor that you have all kinds of short half life products that make the fuel "hot" (radioactively and thermally).

I can't -- and no one else can -- tell the difference between 48KHz and 96KHz audio in ideal conditions. Blind tests that have shown golden ears telling the difference in ideal conditions are irreproducible.

16 and 24 bit has a small perceptible dynamic range advantage under ideal conditions, which are not the conditions where I'd be using phone audio or bluetooth headphones.

Whinging that we can "only" get 48KHz, 24 bit lossless audio, or lossy, low-latency very high bitrate 96KHz 24bit audio is a bit misplaced, IMO.

> Running purely on my engineering intuition: I'm not particularly impressed. I would surely hope that a serious interplanetary telescope could see a car a measly thousand miles away.

The limits of atmospheric seeing defy your intuition, then, I guess. A car is 2 meters wide. Miami to New York is 1700000 meters. The angular resolution we're talking about is thus roughly 0.25 arcseconds. Usually 0.4 arcseconds is the best seeing achieved at high altitude observatories (and only rarely), so achieving nearly double this through superresolution and combining observations is pretty OK.

> rate range from optimistic of 0.5-1%

I think even 1% is overstated, because most infections are not counted. So if your case fatality rate is 2%, but you are missing 80% of cases...

> to 5-10% (or more) if all ICU beds and ventilators got full.

Most people (about 60-70%) you put on a ventilator with COVID-19 still die, so running out of ventilators doesn't swing fatality rates quite this much. Still, you don't want to overwhelm the healthcare system (in part because it will increase the death rate some, and in part because infection control breaks down worsening things yet more).