A breakthrough has already happened - ReBCO superconductors. They enable much more powerful magnets, at higher temperatures and lower power levels. This is important for two reasons. 1. It means that a reactor uses much less power to keep itself running, cooling, and operating the magnets that hold the fusion in place. 2. It means the power density of the reactor goes up with the cube of the magnetic field strength. It makes it much much much easier to reach the densities needed to get to break even. There's a Tokomak already being constructed using this type of magnet near Boston, called SPARC. The physics predictions say it will produce 5 times more fusion power than the power used to run it. It is an experimental reactor designed to figure out the last engineering details to make a reactor that actually generates electricity. Its successor (ARC) is well into the design phase, and already has a construction site. ARC is expected to produce 20 times more fusion power than is input, and produce 500MW for the grid.

To be fair to them, the 787 has up until now not had a hull loss accident, and this plane was a long way out of the factory (it was more than a decade old). Iâ(TM)d bet reasonably heavily that this was caused by something to do with the fuel they loaded at the airport, but thatâ(TM)s pretty rampant speculation.

That said, good god, the 737 and anything made recently, I agree with you completely.

Iâ(TM)d insert into your speculation, any of the above causing only one engine to fail, and then the pilots shut down the wrong engine.

The broken character encoding is because slashdot is the one website that has existed for multiple decades and still canâ(TM)t correctly handle utf-8 in its text inputs. A common reason for seeing broken characters is using Apple devices which will by default use more interesting characters than just ASCII.

The information about the compressor stall comes from eye witnesses who both saw and heard the engine banging, and ejecting big flashes of flame out the back around V1.

Well, we do know some things. We know that it had a loud bang and compressor stall roughly at V1. We know the pilots issued a mayday as they left the ground. We know that it descended in a controlled manner with no engine noise into terrain with the RAT deployed.

While we donâ(TM)t *know*, it looks very much like it suffered a dual engine out situation. Iâ(TM)d bet itâ(TM)s one of:

1. Engine no 1 failed, pilots shut down engine to stop vibrations and/or fire⦠only they shut down engine no 2. Once you deploy the engine fire handle, thereâ(TM)s no restarting the engine, and youâ(TM)re screwed.

2. Plane suffered dual engine failure (most likely due to external factors like birds, because the GE GenX engines have so far been bulletproof).

Frankly, having played with some of the supposedly better reasoning/coding models⦠no they wonâ(TM)t. Good god the crap that stuff produces is terrible.

Not all nuclear rockets are powered by throwing bombs out the back (in fact, thatâ(TM)s a relatively out there idea). Instead, the more commonly proposed design is to simply use a nuclear reactor to make a propellant extremely hot. That propellant is usually hydrogen, because it gives you the best specific impulse by being extremely light, and easy to accelerate.

The new mathematics Iâ(TM)m afraid isnâ(TM)t terribly new, or exciting, itâ(TM)s just stuff that takes a long time. Specifically, itâ(TM)s just trying lots of computations and seeing what works. We havenâ(TM)t done it before because the space (pun intended) to explore for this particular optimisation problem is *huge* and we donâ(TM)t have very good tools for figuring out the global minimum.

The population mentioned is one of two ways discussed. The other is to take a different, faster transfer orbit than the traditional Hohhman transfer.

Society values PhDs for exactly what theyâ(TM)re meant for - theyâ(TM)re vocational training for a career in academic research. Why do you think anyone outside academia would value them?

I donâ(TM)t think thatâ(TM)s the likely cause at all. Instead, Iâ(TM)d expect one of two causes:

1. Lead not being anywhere near as prevalent in the environment

2. Flu vaccination rates. Alzheimerâ(TM)s has been linked to severe flu earlier in life relatively recently, so the fact that weâ(TM)re generally more likely to have had vaccinations, and thus less likely to have had severe flu likely lowers the risk of that particular form of dementia.

âoeExpansion is acceleratingâ is indeed the correct way to understand it. Not only that, but that acceleration is dropping over time. Itâ(TM)s a result that there have been vague hints of for a while, but that weâ(TM)re now at 4.2 sigma on. Not quite a âoeresultâ but getting pretty confident. Itâ(TM)s pretty high up on the scale of âoethis breaks everythingâ because pretty much the first assumption in lambda CDM is âoelambda is a constantâ.

I mean, youâ(TM)re kinda proving his point too though. The point of this article is not that thereâ(TM)s a new model, itâ(TM)s that weâ(TM)ve entered that stage where thereâ(TM)s a clear need to come up with a better model, because itâ(TM)s become apparent that Î is not a constant. We only really entered this stage this year. Now we need to spend a while coming up with ideas that fit the data better and are still useful.

Youâ(TM)re *massively* underestimating the effect that diverting 40% of the traffic on arterial roads off and down minor roads has on a place. Chaos sounds like an apt description for an event like that.

Are you really likely to find out that Google is showing a mass closure though? Instead I think itâ(TM)s far more likely that youâ(TM)re just going to get directions that avoid one highway, and youâ(TM)re going to go âoeOh, I guess there was an accident or somethingâ. Assuming that people have the complete information even about what google said was closed is going to give you some wild and weird conspiracy theories.