These two black holes wouldn't stick to each other, but start swirling around each other and eventually merge together.

This is partly because of friction with and among other stuff in orbit around the black holes in their "accretion disks". (Black holes experience friction by eating the stuff in the other hole's disk of debris, with the momentum of the black-hole-plus-dinner thus being different from the black-hole-before-dinner.)

It's also partly because the rapid acceleration of things passing near a black hole or orbiting it causes the emission of gravity waves to be strong enough that it carries off substantial energy. (In less extreme environments, like suns and planets, the waves are not detectable by current instruments. In the case of two black holes,orbiting each other, they're detectable from across pretty much the whole universe.) This loss of energy amounts to "friction" that eventually causes co-orbiting pairs of black holes to spiral in and combine.

Engines are the responsibility of the engine manufacturer, but often cowlings (which is what failed here) are not. These are highly optimised coverings for the engine which have a big effect on airflow efficiencies, and are often designed by the aircraft manufacturer rather than the engine manufacturer (the engine manufacturer often designs the intake, as that has a lot of effect on the engine efficiency itself).

But this is a 737NG, been in service for years, so its probably a maintenance issue or failed part rather than a design defect.

People need to stop highlighting every failure of a Boeing aircraft now, the vast majority of the ones we have seen talked about this year have nothing to do with Boeing or its culture, and instead are pretty normal failures that wouldnt have been talked about prior to the MAX issues. There are thousands of flights a day, sometimes shit does happen a few times a year - the last time this type of failure was featured on a prime time news segment it had nothing to do with Boeings culture, and it doesnt this time either

Just because a part failed does not mean there is an inherent culture or cost cutting issue, in either the construction or maintenance.

They're listed in Article I, Section 8.

general welfare of the nation.

Delivering wads of cash to some random non-profit organization does not fit that description.

Even presuming that your premise is correction (which non-profit organization would that be?), a large portion of the electorate and a string of court decisions say otherwise, so you'll just have to ineffectually rage at the country for "doing it wrong."

Where does the federal government get the legal authority to "invest" in "clean energy?" I'm pretty familiar with the constitution and I don't see the word "invest" in Congress' enumerated powers.

You're not very familiar with the Constitution if you don't see the words "provide for the... general Welfare of the United States" and understand what it means. If your argument is as basic as "Congress can spend money," hence that part of Article I, section 8, clause 1 being known as the Spending Clause, "but it can't invest money in technological development through spending," then you're going to have a bad, bad day in court.

Could bullshit like this be the reason we're $30 trillion in debt?

No, that's attributable to Republicans' near religious belief that wherever we are on the Laffer curve, the optimal tax rate is still lower than it is now. Of course, the very notion of the Laffer curve belies that argument, because at a tax rate of 0 you collect, get this, 0.

You forget that Boeing (and Lockheed) both got quite a way down the path of designing supersonic passenger aircraft to rival Concorde, only stopping when government money dried up.

Of course, the American alternative needed to be better, so it started iff as a swing wing mach 3 design which vastly increased costs and complexity - ultimately, the final Boeing design looked surprisingly similar as Concorde and had pretty much identical operating specs.

Concorde was designed for a purpose, and so was the 747 - as such, you cant really compare the two without taking the design considerations into account. No supersonic aircraft is going to be as efficient as a subsonic one, thats just basic physics.

This reminds me of the sentencing of the "January 6 insurrection" guilty pleas. As I (a non-lawyer) understand it...

Regardless of whether you consider it an insurrection or a protest march petitioning the government for redress of grievances...

In the wake of the events, the fed busted a bunch of the participants and left them rotting in prison for months (over a year), with no end in sight. In many cases this left families with no breadwinner, enormous legal costs, and expectations of losing all their property as part of some eventual conviction.

Then the prosecutors offered some of the defendants a plea deal; Plead guilty to a misdemeanor or short-sentence felony and we'll drop any other charges.

Rule of thumb: a misdemeanor generally is a crime with a max sentence of no more than a year in prison, a felony more than a year - which is why you see "year and a day" max sentences on some crimes. An accused person already in prison for over the max sentence would expect that accepting the deal would result in immediate release with "credit for time served" (and others near the max might expect release much sooner). So some of them went for it.

Came the sentencing some judges applied a two-year sentence enhancements for "substantial interference with the 'administration of justice.'" OOPS! No release for you.

I'd expect them to pull the same sort of thing on Assange if he were foolish enough to plead guilty to anything, no matter how minor.

(By the way: This particular form of the practice, as used on the Jan6 participants, was just recently struck down. But the decision was based on Congress' certification of the presidential election not qualifying as "administration of justice.'" So this wouldn't apply to whatever enhancement trick they might pull on Julian.

I don't know what you heard, but baby cells can only stay baby cells, they can't become mommy cells,

Sez who?

There's been evidence for some time that post-pregnancy mothers often have clones of stem cells derived from the previous foetus. Sure such a clone would likely start out with its epigenitc programming set for whatever function it had in the baby's development (unless, say, some error in its differentiation is what led to it migrating to the woman's body to set up shop). But once established on the mother's side of the placental barrier, and especially after the birth, the stem cell clone can be expected to continue to run its program under direction of the growth factors in the mother's blood.

That amounts to a transplant of younger stem cells which could be expected to produce differentiated cells for tissue growth and replacemtnt,, with the aging clock set farther back and with some genes from the father to provide "hybrid vigor", filling in for defective genes in the mother's genome or adding variant versions of molecular pathways.

Sure, theres a lot of info about it, but...

How much of that info is both:

1. Cutting edge technology, and
2. Detailed enough to actually help assist in reproducing the design

Next time you fly, take a look at the engine on the commercial jet aircraft you are about to board. Look hard at the intake, Its just a round hole, right? Wrong - lots of cutting edge design and engineering goes into each generation of jet engine aircraft around the intakes, as its one of the key areas where you can gain or lose performance in the engine.

Often when an aircraft manufacturer offers two engine options for a commercial aircraft, both engines will use the same intake design, and there are differences when it comes to who designs the intake - if the aircraft manufacturer designs it, the efficiency is midpoint between both engines, but sometimes one of the engine manufacturers gets to design it. When that happens, the efficiency is always skewed toward that manufacturers engines, and the other engine option is slightly less efficient as a result.

During its day, Concordes intakes were actually cutting edge - to the point where the Tu-144 didnt have intakes anywhere near as good and as such the Soviets tried several times to steal the plans. So yeah, Concordes intake design was a closely guarded secret for many years during its early service.

No ones really that worried about China having 1970s tech, its China getting hold of 2020s tech which is the issue.

Not all jets, just supersonic ones, which tends to be military so these sort of things tend to be restricted as a result.

The difficulty for subsonic flight is different to that of supersonic - with commercial subsonic, you want a smooth flow of air into your fan and compressor stages, where its actually accelerated in order to compress it, and it needs a wide open intake to accomplish that for high efficiency . With supersonic, the engine still has to do its thing, but it cant do it with supersonic airflow, so it needs to slow it down in such a way that the airflow isn’t turbulent by the time it reaches the fan and compressors.

So the issue here is to do what is done on military aircraft, without being able to lean on a lot of the practical and up to date knowledge that those military aircraft use, because you also dont want China to have that knowledge.

Will be interesting to see how the US government handles this as an export.

You are spouting the same bullshit that Boeing was back when the accidents occurred.

The same arguments that were proven false by the ENTIRE FUCKING FLEET BEING GROUNDED and the subsequent FAA and NTSB reports into the crash. If it was just a training issue, an Air Worthiness Directive would have been issued to that effect. But no, it wasnt, the FAA and civil aviation authorities around the world GROUNDED THE ENTIRE FLEET until Boeing fixed it.

You are the same vile sort of person that decided at Boeing to implement this system in the first place, blaming the pilots and the airlines.

why doesnt apple just leave or buy the US

After Apple's fled the U.S. and Europe, and been driven out of China in favor of Huawei, what's left to justify a multi-trillion dollar valuation?

Businesses must transact where their customers are, not necessarily where the regulatory environment is most favorable to them.

This strikes me as a bit of a shakedown, settle with out patent claims or we'll screw up your IPO by creating a new potential liability.

Back in the early days of the personal computer explosion there was a patent for the "XOR cursor" which I hear was used as a trolling operation. Story goes that every time a new hi-tek company was in that sensitive period just as they're about to go public, they'd get a notice that they were believed to be violating that (even if whatever they were doing didn't even involve a display with a cursor, XOR or otherwise) and an offer to license the patent for something substantial but far lower than the cost and risks of fighting it. ($10,000?) So the companies generally paid up rather than derail their IPO.

It was jokingly referred to as a tax on incorporation. There are rumors of discussions of buying a hit on the trolls. Apparently this netted over $50,000,000 before the patent expired. (Also there was apparently prior art discovered - AFTER the expiration.)

Oh more anti-Airbus bollocks.

No, an Airbus aircraft did not override a pilot at an airshow - you are talking about the Mulhouse–Habsheim Airfield crash in 1988, and that was entirely pilot induced. Too low, power at or near idle, below surrounding structures and applied power too late - no jet aircraft is going to go from lower power to high power quickly, it takes time for the engines to spool up.

That pilot was an idiot. That crash was not caused by Airbuses flight envelope protection.

And your understanding of Airbuses software is pretty darn well off track - there are multiple levels of protection, and there are plenty of procedures for putting the aircraft into direct mode where the pilot has the final say.

People need to stop with this bullshit that Airbus is as bad as Boeing - stop trying to make a false equivalency.

The ones that crashed... the airlines just didn't bother to train the pilots.

Ok, this right here, this has been proven to be false many many times since those crashes - the MCAS debacle had NOTHING to do with pilot training, and everything to do with there being a system which isnt even mentioned in the training manuals, nor was there a procedure to disconnect it and keep it disconnected.

In addition to that, the amount of force that the pilots would have had to apply to the trim wheels to counter the MCAS inputs is something you cannot do with one hand while seated - and the time in which you needed to make those adjustments was extremely short, in the manner of a few seconds, before the MCAS induced oscillations were fatal.

You are doing nothing but spouting pro-Boeing bullshit that has been disproven over and over.

Oh stop with that bullshit.

The crash you are talking about (Air France flight at Mulhouse–Habsheim Airfield) was an idiot pilot that attempted a low altitude fly by with no engine power and expecting the engines to supply immediate power from idle when the throttles are moved - that doesnt happen on any jet aircraft, there is always a delay when power is applied.

The idiot pilot was too low (below surrounding structures), with engines at idle, and applied power too late to avoid hitting the tree line. It was entirely pilot error. What he should have been doing was flying with a lot of power applied and controlling the speed using flaps, speed brakes and other aerodynamic devices. Instead, he was flying the aircraft pretty cleanly with minimal power.

It had nothing to do with Airbus software.

And the only Airbus crash which even vaguely matches "mysterious loss of an Airbus over the Atlantic" is Air France 447, which was due to a pitot-static error which induced pilot error - the pilots literally stalled the aircraft by not following proper procedure. If the pilots had followed correct procedure, they would have recovered from the incident without issue.

Stop with your bullshit attempts to paint us a picture that Airbus has similar software issues to Boeing - they do not. That bullshit only exists in the minds of conspiracy theorists.

when recycling came on the scene the skeptics, and there were plenty of them, were immediately shouted down by groups who believed that recycling was an obvious, common sense way to help save the planet. It was an early version of trying to âoecancelâ anybody who challenged the validity of recycling. And now weâ(TM)re going to criticize the industry executives who were bullied into keeping quiet?

Which "industry executives" were bullied into keeping quiet about whether recycling plastic could work? And perhaps more to the point, who was doing the bullying?

If you're claiming that the general public was shouting down oil and chemical industry executives who publicly warned that recycling wasn't going to be a viable solution, I'm going to want to see a lot of documentation.