If the car wasn't built with a supercharger in mind it might not be practical. Charging generates heat, and too much heat causes malfunctions at best and fires at worst.
One of the problems this causes is the lack of appreciation for the mathematics that defines computer science
How does mathematics define computer science?
Which leads us to the sadly all too true obligatory XKCD which is why Linux on the desktop is so low its getting its ass handed to it by "other" and has gotten so low its literally below the margin for error.
Considering that every time Linux starts to get stable the devs take a big steaming shit on it, Pulse, KDE 4, Gnome 3, Systemd, not to mention Torvalds constant kernel fiddling, is anybody really surprised by the plummeting numbers? Its a damned shame but as long as devs would rather put out yet another release instead of fixing the bugs in the previous release Linux will always remain in alpha quality.
You need to move overseas. Asia especially, thigh gaps as far as the eye can see.
Link to Original Source
Bill Gates is far more intelligent than you,
That needs a big 'citation needed' next to it, but:
and has already seen a working plant, which is why he is investing on a technology that is going to displace oil and outright kill renewables.
You don't understand risk analysis. He's investing a very small proportion of his wealth in something that may have massive returns. The probability of said returns may be small, but that doesn't make it a bad investment if the potential payoffs are huge, as long as you can afford to take the loss if it doesn't pan out. Most people with his money will invest a few millions in a few fringe ideas, because it only takes one to pay off to more than make up for your investment. The majority of his portfolio will be in relatively safe investments with a close-to-guaranteed return, a bit will be in risky venture.
Under any other circumstance it seems he would be pursuing a career in alchemy.
He did say that he might have pursued physics if he didn't end up in computer science.
Teaching algorithms separately from data structures is one of the biggest flaws in modern computer science education. It's impossible to reason sensibly about one without the other.
And what was the destructive capacity of the Navy in 2006 compared to August 1945? Hell, one Ohio class submarine has more destructive capacity than the entire Navy from 1945
A statistic that floated around earlier in the year when Argentina was grumbling about the Falklands again: one of the battleships that the British were sending to the area could fire, in one minute, more munitions than were fired in the entire 1982 conflict. I'd imagine that the differences between 1945 and now are even more pronounced.
One constant trend has been that soldiers are less expendable. In the first world war, sending men to walk slowly towards machine guns and throw a grenade if they survived to get close enough was their patriotic duty. By Vietnam, having large numbers of soldiers come back in body bags was politically unacceptable.
In the 1940s, Japan was flying aircraft loaded with bombs into American warships. A few years later, people realised that you could design aircraft for this purpose and make them a lot lighter and able to accelerate more if you removed the human pilot. They called them anti-ship missiles.
The fighter screen that fleets needed to protect themselves from aircraft in the '40s is now replaced by anti-aircraft and interceptor missiles (and dumb projectiles). In the next generation of ships a lot of this will be replaced by lasers, which reduces some of the resupply need (you can't run out of laser ammunition on a nuclear carrier unless your ship is so badly damaged that it's not a good idea to be anywhere near it).
Gradually, a lot of the roles for aircraft are being replaced by drones, which means that you need smaller carriers. They don't need to house as many pilots, they don't need as many support staff.
Another part of this trend is to replace reusable vehicles with single-use munitions. Fighters are more expensive than missiles, so you spend a lot on maintaining them. Drones are a lot cheaper, so you can afford to fly them for a couple of missions and then scrap them (explosively, near someone you don't like).
Comparing numbers, as the grandparent did, is completely meaningless. You may as well compare the size of the air force to the number of soldiers Napoleon had.
Oh, and libavcodec / libavformat are used in Android (and in a lot of iOS apps, as AVFoundation doesn't always expose useful APIs), as well as in desktop browsers, so they're a pretty good target to aim for.