"[Conventional plants] also produce so much more power that merely sending somebody by once a year to glance that the greed led is still softly glowing is more maintenance per watt."
That could be an interesting hypothesis, but if you put it down like a hard fact, you should also provide some data to support it so that we can have a meaningful discussion about it.
That is 0.50 $/Wh. You can buy USB powerbanks for EUR 7 per 2600 mAh, which is about 0.70 EUR/Wh or 0.85 $/Wh and includes a USB cable, fancy colored shell, USB connectors, charging circuits, and status LEDs.
I'm surprised that the economy of scale makes so little difference.
In LaTeX (and Word for that matter), I always prefix my notes with @@@ because that is a string that nnever occurs in normal text (easoly searchable) and that sticks out visually like a sore thumb.
Percent-sign-prefixed comments ("this needs an update") are much easier to overlook, or even guaranteed to be overlooked during proofreading. At least, I don't proofread my LaTeX markup, but rather the typeset document.
"It's called the F5 - From what I can gather, somewhere along the line they had to "enhance" the F ratings to get more f4's and ef 5's."
Not quite. From Wikipedia:
It was revised to reflect better examinations of tornado damage surveys, so as to align wind speeds more closely with associated storm damage. Better standardizing and elucidating what was previously subjective and ambiguous, it also adds more types of structures and vegetation, expands degrees of damage, and better accounts for variables such as differences in construction quality.
Since the new system still uses actual tornado damage and similar degrees of damage for each category to estimate the storm's wind speed, the National Weather Service states that the new scale will likely not lead to an increase in a number of tornadoes classified as EF5.
"I received a Pebble
Îoey Pebble (1 year old) lasts an entire week on a charge, unless I have been using realtime apps (gps tracker). It helps to disable the "shake for backlight" setting.
"the only time the 5-star rating is going to go to a 3-star rating is if the national testing facilities start using these dummies. And if they do that..."
If they do that, you'll need twice the number of cars to sacrifice in crash tests and the dummies will wear out twice as fast. Likely, you'll need twice the number of testing facilities as well. A decision to make such tests mandatory should not be taken lightly.
My guess is that these dummies will be used to gain knowledge on how to translate standard test results to risks for nonstandard body types, and possibly to mandatory requirements on car/safety belt construction if the disadvantage of an obese person is large and preventable.
"4W charger can charge devices at the same rate as my 5 and 10 watt chargers! The last generation of phones use 5V 1A = 5 watt chargers"
That the charger is capable of delivering 5 W does not actually mean that the device will actually draw that amount. I have a dongle that measures the current and voltage of USB chargers and my smartphones rarely draw more than 0.8 A, and even then only if I use a low-resistance cable with a battery below 80%. Cables that are long enough to reach comfortably from the floor to my hands while I'm sitting usually do less than that.
Google "usb charger doctor", the dongle is only $7 or so.
"HAM radio operators have a statistically significant higher incident of cancer."
You seem to be selective in your interpretation of the data. From the second link:
"Among men, there were 14,630 deaths (SMR = 0.73 (95% CI = 0.71-0.74)) and among women, 760 (SMR = 0.72 (0.67-0.78)). There were 4,007 cancer deaths among males (SMR = 0.79 (0.76-0.81)) and 289 among females (SMR = 0.82 (0.72-0.92))."
Standardized mortality ratios (SMR) smaller than one for cancer mean that there are fewer cancer deaths among radio operators than among the total (US) population. The abstract continues to state that for some particular types of cancer, the SMR is slightly above one, but with very wide confidence intervals (CI), which indicate that there are too few cases for reliable statistics.
"The problem with Bose has always been that they only sound "acceptably okay" at relatively low volumes, they tend to massively distort at what I would consider a normal listening volume. [...] especially if you'll be using them in very noisy environments"
Cranking up the volume to drown out envoronmental noise sounds like a good pathway towards a hearing aid by the time you're 50 years old.
There have been occasions that I actually asked co-travelers on the train to lower their volume because I could hear their hip hop beat over my own music that was playing through my own noise-isolating headphones. I suspect that those people are already semi-deaf...
"I use some fairly cheap Sennheiser in-ear monitors on aircraft now. The isolation is better than any noise cancelling headphones can ever hope to achieve"
What model? I have cx-300-2 noise-isolating earbuds, which I'd call fairly cheap at around EUR 35, but I wouldn't say they perform better than bose/beats noise cancelling headphones. Whatever else I see in a quick Google is several hundred dollars.
You are probably the only one in the world who uses that definition of 'exponential'. The exponential function has the property exp(x+1)=2.7*exp(x), which is completely analogous to your geometric series.
"the ebola death curve is exponential. Production and distribution of vaccines, and of antibodies by transfusion, is at best geometric."
Geometric is essentially the same as exponential. The only difference is that geometric is in discrete steps and exponential can also describe fractional steps. So, what did you really mean here?