Well, if free is the problem, you can always cut a big check and send it me when you adopt such software. Of course I will channel all such funds received into furthering the benefit of mankind (or at least 1 man). I will even gladly give you a receipt for your "purchase"

While buoyancy works exactly as you state (and I am pretty sure climate scientists understand this too). I do recall from past reading is that scientists are concerned that breakup of the marine sheets leads to accelerated melting of the land sheets.

With intact marine sheets, the land sheets do not flow easily into the ocean (not enough force to displace the marine ice). But if the marine ice is gone, the land ice can flow more freely into the water. In the large, Ice is quite plastic and will flow downhill due to gravity at significant rate.

And given the history of firearms progress, I am sure the smart guys working on the constitution pretty much expected the technology to continue improving. The militia (basically all able bodied adult men) did not have a modern handgun, but they did have cannons. I think it is fair consider that founding fathers expected the militia to be well armed with powerful weapons.

Based on statistics from police shootings, an armed women is more likely to shoot than a man. Generally this is assumed to be the knowledge that she is less likely to dominate the perp physically and though perhaps emotional, social, etc. differences, may be involved -- hard to tell since these are quite subjective, i.e., why did you shoot or not the perp.

Maybe Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton, and Xenon

OK, suck in to much of these and you can deprive yourself of oxygen.
Cool them to liquid temperature and drink them, not a good idea either.

But chemically speaking, I think these are pretty harmless.

I'm sure all would be happier if this were expressed in more familiar units

555.55 miles per sec
894.08 kilometers per sec
2300 times the muzzle velocity of a S&W 40 cal bullet
2600 times the speed of sound
2.1 E4 times the speed of a fastball
8.7 e4 times the speed of Usain Bolt
2 e13 times the speed of grass growing
5.376 E9 furlongs per for fortnight

In 1979 I worked at a Fortune 200 company with a couple of IBM 370s. In our computer programming department, about 20 programmers shared 2 3270 terminals. You could hand-write coding sheets to have it keypunched, but turn-around was a day or two. Dumps & snapsdumps were common debugging tools.

Maybe so, but even for him a 7 volume set on computer programming takes a very long time indeed.

Sure radioactive means dangerous, but dangerous != harmful. There is always risk. Gasoline is dangerous, you handle it carelessly and you can get a big explosion. Refineries are dangerous. Coal mines are dangerous, etc. The question is not "is it dangerous", but how dangerous is it? How can we mitigate risk? Is it worth the risk?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the Large reactors make more sense in some situations?

If all you need is 50 MW, building a 1 GW plant makes no sense. If you have a projected growth of 25MW per year, and you are bumping against capacity, you have the choice of building out a 50 MW mini-nuke every 2 years or a 1 GW plant every 40 years, the time-value of money on a big plant will kill you for production costs in the short term.

Maybe the modular plant will actually be cheaper once your start producing them in volume, given a streamlined licensing path the the SMR.

The question is whether the natural market for SMRs is sufficiently large that they can ever become competitive, or at least large enough to justify the R&D, etc. needed to produce them in the first place to justify them as an independent market. Some people are betting they can make this work. Under a capitalist economy they are generally free to make the attempt with limits.

mPower may have reached the point that their attempt is going to fail. This does not directly affect the others making the attempt unless investors as a class lose interest in SMRs because of examples like mPower.

If I had an extra 10 billion USD, I would invest heavily in SMRs -- mPower, not a dime. I would bet on LFTR and maybe other fission techs. For example, this reactor design looks like a nice candidate for an intermediate complexity solution -- still a big downside in term of fuel burnup, but might be worth the investment too.

Nothing for fusion though, I don't expect to live long enough to see it pay it. I see SMR as a natural outcome of better tech, not a tweak of a pressurized light water reactor.

I would agree that mPower will never really result in cheap nuke option. The complications necessary to make LWR reactor "safe" fight against scaling down to smaller plant designs.

And wrong. 2 things are needed. Gravity, cohesion in the working fluid. See working siphon in a vacuum -- Their explanations are actuall pretty good.

Air pressure does not push the fluid up the tube ever. The liquids cohesiveness is pulling it up the tube. This video is actually running a siphon in a vacuum with good explanations of how a siphon really works.

The only time atmospheric pressure enter the picture as a driving force is the case when you suck the liquid throw the siphon tube initially.

You can't run a siphon of water over a height greater than atmospheric pressure is that water does not have sufficient cohesiveness to pull it over this height.

As is often the case, the real answer is the monetize the solution. Charge for parking access / egress priority rights. Those in first class pay more, but get to exit first. The money problem solves how you get the resource for parking attendants, etc. needed to enforce the rules.

Now, you may even collect enough funds to make it worthwhile to improves the access to the local highways to increase flow rates significantly via additional lanes, etc.

A bunch of hippies won't like this solution, but they are probably used to it by now.

Used to do a lot of C++ coding, one man and teams. When doing C++, would have problem apps that the c++ expert (often me) had to debug because of crashes, memory leaks, etc. When doing similar things in c#, these problems largely go away. C# is hardly unique in this aspect (Java, etc.)

Though I love me some c/c++, I also know that most programmers will find C# and other higher languages less troublesome in the real world. Deny it if you want, but it my experience there is no contest.

IMO C# is really of nice language, too bad it is effectively MS only -- Mono is not really mainstream, and appears unlikely to ever get this unless a miracle occurs.

Hello ... stripes are thinning. First you get a few females with stripes, guys prefer them -- breeding takes over stripes everywhere.

Lest you think this is jest. Consider the standard evolutionary advantage explanation of peacock plumage as sexual preference based on the appearance. In fact, the literature abounds with appearance based sexual preferences as explanatory.

The real question is why did Zebras evolve "fashion sense"

Flies avoiding stripes, just happened to be a side benefit.