Still pretty scary that a simple counter like that can cause a chain of events that chucks off the power completely. How can this be possible?
Yeah. Imagine if it happened on final approach.
I remember supporting an office with win95 and Access. I had tech support conversations that almost went like this:
Him: My computer just crashed.
Me: So what did you do then?
Him: I rebooted it.
Me: Well there's your problem. Reboot the computer again. Then tap the computer gently and pray to the god of your choice and reboot a third time...
Him:
Just because the answers are complicated and messy does not mean the rights of the people should be abdicated. That's the seductive logic of authoritarianism.
Or nonexistent. Of course, I don't see a problem that needs fixing either.
But that's got to be the dumbest justification I've ever read. Human metabolism is complex, but the pancreas doesn't bluff.
It means they're solving a harder problem.
Certainly it's preferable to 'Rich people sitting on their wealth'.
The amazing thing about Elon Musk is that when he was a student he actually lived on $1/day for a while. He said that knowing he could live on so little was quite freeing, enabling him to take more risks.
I really don't think of him as your typical billionaire.
Can anyone explain why Jeff Bezos is doing the same thing that SpaceX is already doing ?
To lower cost to orbit
The only difference I see is that they want to use LOX/LH for first stage. And even then, they plan to go to LOX/LMethane after that.
Of course, competition is always nice to have.
Yeah, the only difference is that Bezos founded Blue Origin in 2000, two years before Space X was founded, and only just now launched his first rocket. Bezos sounds like the Justin Hammer of the commercial space industry.
The facts are that, contrary to the initial claim, the IPCC models have been very good at predicting the changes we've seen.
Your links show predictions with large error bars. So no, they aren't very good at predicting.
At least with carbon reduction we're attempting to reverse climate changes through a mechanism believed to trigger those changes. However, with new intervention mechanisms that aren't fully understood, I don't trust anybody's model of what they think will happen.
I'll buy that. But I think it's worth noting here that all of our choices are geoengineering choices, including emission reduction and doing nothing. I find it a dubious argument to heavily favor one approach and then rule out a whole category of other strategies on the basis that we don't know enough to implement them. That should be a warning that we don't know enough to implement any of them.
Also there's some low-lying geoengineering fruit such as albedo changes in urban environments in hot locations which is a considerable part of the world, reforestation, and putting out large coal bed fires.
Why purchase it in the first place if I still have to rely on the grid? Seems like a waste of money unless it is strictly for backup purposes only. And even then, it won't run what is needed like electric heat or A/C unless you purchase multiple units. Then natural gas and propane generators would be much more cost effective.
You purchase it so that you can store grid electrical energy while the rates are low overnight, and use it when rates are high during peak hours.
Uhhhhhh...gigafactory?
"That's not an argument!!!"
Yeah, it's called posting on an iPad
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.