Individual hardware is the cheap part--although it does also need to be pretty goddamn ruggedized.

Departments need new infrastructure: Servers, docking stations, stuff like that. No it's not as easy as plug it in with USB and drag and drop your files--you want this to be a lot more secure than a mountable media drive. Infrastructure is an ongoing cost too, especially with public record requests.

Training isn't zero, either. Not only do you have to teach people how to operate them (and these aren't all technical people, which means that either training is nontrivial or that docking station really is fancy and expensive), but you also need to teach them policy, really drill it in there. Call it four hours of education and training per user, and the number of users is pretty close to the number of cameras. It's paid training time, so you're covering their salary, management, the organization per-department of those training sessions, hell probably research to make sure you're giving effective training... Look, training and meetings suck, but doing them _right_ is important and it's _expensive_, and you get what you pay for.

The cost sounds realistic to me.

Nah, won't happen. Why do you think they excluded boys from the project?

Uh, you mean the opposite? If you can demonstrate that there really is an internet subculture where "everyone makes death threats", then surely you have demonstrated that at least in that subculture no reasonable recipient would interpret them literally? Assuming the "threat" is made within the context of that subculture, that is. Reasonableness has to be context dependent, after all.

Cool, when I get an assassin to kill your mother, I'll call on you to defend me in court.

Interpreting "non-trivial" as anything but "hopeless" in your post voids your argument, so I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry.

The total mass of the object doesn't matter given that it has finite thermal conductivity. If you intend to study it with instruments which also give off heat/are near to something that gives off heat, then what matters is how that heat will affect the area immediately around the lander.

If it's so hopeless to figure out how much energy you get from foods, how the hell are you going to figure out vastly more complicated things like how they affect your metabolism?

Eh, only in some ways. The UK might have more surveillance cameras and official domestic spying, but the US has probably more unofficial domestic spying, and, from what I've heard, generally in the UK your hair don't stand on end when you're near a cop.

You're claiming everyone on a keto diet is hypoglycemic? I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed that by now... It happens when first starting such a diet, but within one or two days the body adjusts and starts producing its own sugars from fat and protein.

Yes, which is bad because it leads you to eat more, thus making the "calories in" part bigger. That was my point. What matters most is physiology -> psychology -> fat, not physiology -> fat, so you should optimize a diet for psychology subject to a fixed amount of calories. If you use information about physiology in order to do so then great, but you don't need to, and in fact it may at some point be counterproductive because the more mental energy you use thinking about physiology, the less you have left to enforce the calorie limit. I'm willing to bet many people who have had a long term struggle to lose weight have gone through cycles of "try to implement great idea that helps lose weight -> start slacking off on calorie restriction because there's already a dopamine release from eating/doing 'the right thing' -> don't lose weight -> get discouraged -> say fuck it and eat an entire pizza in one sitting". Not everyone, but many people.

Being 100lbs overweight is an even worse idea. Obesity is so bad for health in so many ways, that I think losing weight by any means necessary, as long as it works, is overall better for you, even if in the short term it means eating a less than ideal diet.

"Calories in, calories out" is given as a good first order approximation of reality for the purposes of weight loss (at least whenever I've seen it). This article isn't about weight loss, it's about health. It's obvious that being conducive to weight loss and being healthy are not synonymous. I could lose weight by eating nothing but cyanide.

Now, it's true that even for weight loss "calories in, calories out" is only an approximation, but based on the admittedly small amount of information I have it is basically the most practically useful one, and using more complex models is counterproductive. Ultimately for most people trying to lose weight the most limiting factor is psychology. If you have some really nice theory about how different nutrients (or even exercise) affect weight differently, chances are you will be tempted to slack off on the by far much more important "calories in, calories out" equation, because you have a limited amount of mental energy. All the physiological tricks mean jack shit if you're inputting too much energy into yourself. Now of course what you eat still matters a lot, but mainly because it affects your psychology differently -- for instance, I've heard many anecdotal reports that 1200 calories from carbs leaves people feeling much less satisfied than the same amount from fat and protein, which of course is going to make it harder for a person not to eat any more. In other words, a corollary to "calories in, calories out" is "find whichever source of calories makes it easiest for you to maintain the equation", but even then physiology matters only in the way that it affects psychology, and not directly because some sources of calories are metabolized differently than others.

The purpose of the ISS was to spread the cost of a space station among many different countries, so that no one of them had to foot the bill for their own. One of the reasons the USSR went bankrupt is because they could not keep up with US cold war expenditures, including the space race.

Which makes it truly bizarre that Russia would be thinking of going into space alone again. Putin doesn't appear to remember any history at all.

Personally I'd be happy to hack my car's windows in the opposite direction. On the driver side only, if you tap "up", it rolls up all the way--you have to hold it down for it to not do that. Which means if you want to adjust it a quarter of an inch, you have to go down and then up, or up too far and then back down.

Signing up for this basically asap.

But if the price is the same no matter how many different sites you consume, or how much of their bandwidth you chew up, well...I'm not sure how I think about that, from an "I want my favorite websites to actually get money" point of view.