You say that as though it's impossible to hold ideas from different groups simultaneously. How charmingly naive.
Don't be jealous, there's plenty of me to go around.
You're 0 for 2.
That's adorable that you're keeping score.
Seems like it'd be worthwhile to trial a real computer of similar spec to what he's wanting vs. a virtual server, to see relative speed and relative cost. You can get some pretty stonking powerful VPS instances if you're willing to pay for them, and with Amazon you can optimize for different workloads such as GPU, CPU, or fast IO.
There can't be that many projects on CVS who are sticking with it only because they're waiting for someone else to manage the switch to git, and you'd need a fair number to make this worthwhile, IMO. I think he may be tilting at windmills.
Oh, look. Speaking of fringe libertarians, here's one of
Run along, kid. I know better than to think you're willing to change your mind about your religion.
Why do this instead of spinning up an Amazon AWS instance on demand? It shouldn't cost much to convert a source repository with that method, especially compared to buying a whole computer.
And then he turned into a neoconservative/fringe libertarian nutbar after that business with the skyscrapers in '01.
Poorly, most likely. Enfields manufactured in the subcontinent (India and Pakistan both) aren't well-regarded with respect to quality.
At any rate, rechambering will require replacing the barrel, bolt, receiver, sights, and possibly parts of the magazine. That's most of the gun already, and you're compounding your logistics problems by having a small number of guns with this specific configuration.
Closer to 1889, not 1930. The late 1880s through early 1900s was when the common military rifle cartridges of the World Wars were developed. Trivia: the
However, it hasn't been produced in a long time (parts wear out), it's for an obsolescent caliber (complicates logistics a bit), and there are better rifles now.
The Finns came up with a good solution with their reworked Mosins: 3-piece wooden stocks. They left gaps between the pieces to allow for expansion and contraction with ambient air temperature and humidity.
All nuclear reactors will generate waste via activation as the materials of which they are constructed erode and become unstable under high neutron flux. I'm not pointing this out because I think it's a big deal — a few fusion advocates disingenuously tend to sell the process as if it were "100% clean." A low volume of non-recyclable waste from fusion reactors that is walk-away safe in ~100 years is doable. Let's do it. And likewise, the best comparable waste profile for fission is a two-fluid LFTR, a low volume of waste that is walk-away safe in ~300 years. Let's do it.
Why pursue both, with at least the same level of urgency? Because both could carry us indefinitely. LFTR is less complicated in theory and practice. It is closer to market. There is plenty of cross-over: LFTR's materials challenges and heat engine interface — and the necessity for waste management — are the same as they will be for commercial-scale fusion reactors. To get up to speed please see the 2006 fusion lecture by Dr. Robert Bussard on the Wiffle ball 6 plasma containment, likely the precursor to the Skunkworks approach. And see Thorium Remix 2011 which presents the case for LFTR.