Comment Re:Rationality versus rationalism (Score 1) 73
Now explain how the noblemen is doing the herdsmen a kindness by charging them rent.
Also, in NYC, explain the chronically vacant commercial space (hint, no rent control).
Now explain how the noblemen is doing the herdsmen a kindness by charging them rent.
Also, in NYC, explain the chronically vacant commercial space (hint, no rent control).
OMG, I'm so stealing that
"Woke" simply means "I'm conservative, and the thing I'm calling 'Woke' is something that I hate". It has no well-defined meaning beyond that. I've heard things as diverse as "the concept of the Metaverse" and "removing copyrighted content so you don't get sued" described as "woke".
No call by push value or P vs NP or complexity theory etc.
So a different set of things that are also useless to the vast majority of people?
Even when Chrome adds support, we'll have to wait ages before we can actually reliably use the format without having to implement fallback logic and fallback formats for legacy browsers.
AVIF is also painfully slow. And if I recall correctly, is outperformed by JPEG XL at moderate and low compression (but - again, if I recall correctly - AVIF wins at highly compressed images). Also, AVIF faces some patent threats. And misses a lot of JPEG XL's interesting features.
A practical issue with a circle is that it is not a circle until it is finished,
That's not the reason at all, AFAIK. The reasoning is, okay, we want people to be able to move from one place to some distance place in the city at the maximum comfortable speed, which is limited by G-forces. You have some guaranteed G-forces from first accelerating and then decelerating. But if it's linear, that's your only G forces. If it's curved, however, you also have radial G-forces.
The Line's train going from one end to the other (170km) nonstop is supposed to do it in 20 minutes, aka with a mean speed of ~510 kph. Let's say a peak of 800 kph. Now if we shape that 170km into a circle, that's 54km diameter, 27km radius. From the centripetal force formula a=v^2/r, that's 222,22...^2 / 27000 ~= 1,83 m/s^2, or a constant ~0,2g to the side. This is on top of the G-forces from your acceleration and deceleration. You can probably deal with ~0,2g in a train if everyone is seated without much discomfort, though it's double what's acceptable for standing passengers. But you can eliminate that if the city is linear (at the cost of increasing the mean distance that the average person has to travel to go from one arbitrary point in the city to another)
That's not to defend this concept. Because the city doesn't need to be 170km long; you can just made it more 2d and have the distances be vastly shorter (at the cost of just needing some extra lateral travel within the city). Honestly, if I were building a "designer" city from the ground up, I'd use a PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) system rather than trying to make it super-elongated.
What got me is that I don't see why this isn't readily resolved by active damping, the same systems that many tall towers now use to resist earthquakes or resonant wind forces. Big heavy weight at the top (or in this case the bottom) hooked up to actuators that make it move in an inverse direction to the sway.
Again, this is not to defend this colossal waste of money. I just don't see why there aren't ready solutions for this specific problem.
Agreed - but that said, there are space elevator alternatives, like the Lofstrom Loop / Launch Loop, which at least theoretically can be built with modern materials (and have far better properties anyway - not latitude-constrained, provides dV, vastly higher throughput, far more efficient, stores energy / can add cheap energy at off-peak times, etc). One could always "waste" money on them trying something new
Give religious fanatics tons of money and you end up with crap like this. These people have no connection to reality and a massively oversized ego.
Nice "improvement".
Don't try to drag this down to kindergarten level. It is unbecoming and says bad things about you. Sure, only something like 10-15% of the human race are actually rational and can fact-check, but these people exist.
No. You cannot. This bullshit statement shows that you have no clue.
And do you have any proof of that or is that just what your decidedly non-expert evaluation is? It is _very_ easy to get things totally and completely wrong in the medical space.
What if you just want to be abysmally stupid? Sure, you can be. It is not illegal or something. But do not push it as a model to aspire to, because that will harm _others_ and at that point you leave what is acceptable.
How many hardware guys does it take to change a light bulb? "Well the diagnostics say it's fine buddy, so it's a software problem."