Geekwire has a much better article with interviews that explain a bit more whats going on, although still not in great detail. In particular this section makes me really interested in whats going on.

https://www.geekwire.com/2022/...

Apparently not, they only modified them to have a slower terminal velocity while in a dive. During the performance, one of the planes started to corkscrew uncontrollably after the pilot left and only the other plane was able to be re-entered and successfully flown away (from what I can read anyway, its georestricted to paying only in the USA and im too lazy to pirate it). Here's a youtube clip of the just a small bit where they jump out: ?v=ODCzlEyaSDM Maybe they should have done SOMETHING of an autopilot, or maybe it malfunctioned.

There are two IP addresses in question. The public IP which matched this student, another student, and the attackers. And the private IPs which the accused student's attorney is using to show the attackers and the student had different private IPs (and presumably on a different subnet so they can't easily say it was the same router).

Sounds like either Zoom's logging of public IPs isnt working properly or the attackers are other students in the class and being geographically local they may be under the same carrier-grade NAT public IP address (if their ISP is using carrier grade NAT).

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada...

Gee I wonder why people are getting sick.

correction, the chronic wasting disease wiki page.

Yeah here's a frightening piece of potentially salient information from the prion wiki page:

We can at least we be grateful they don't use violence to get what they want like a certain other religion hell bent of censoring.

Just realized they split the BEV category into greater than 200m range and less than. So if we only consider BEVs with a range greater than 200 miles we get a better number at 233k. Using the same maths as above that gives us 13.98gWh total battery capacity, 10% of which gives us 1.398gWh (battery capacity reserved for grid use). Finally, with our arbitrary 10% plugged in at any given time we get 139.8mWh.

An interesting side effect of increased EV sales would potentially also increase our electrical grid capacity and ability to absorb peak usages IF car-makers were "encouraged" to do so (which is by no means a stretch for California). Allowing the energy stored in a car's battery to be fed back into the grid if its ever needed would do a lot to smooth out brown/blackouts. If we use the Chevy Bolt's battery capacity as our starting point (60 kWh, the Nissan Leaf has a similar configuration) and say we dedicate just 10% of its capacity to use by the electrical grid if needed. I'm going to use data from California's Zero Emission Vehicle and Charger Statistics [1] page for the number of Battery-Electric Vehicles (BEV). So roughly 308k BEVs with 60kWh batteries (which is optimistic), if they were all plugged in at once, gives us 18.48gWh. Since we only get 10% of that it comes down to a mere 1.84gWh. Now this is still a massive overestimation since not all EV's will have 60kWh batteries and certainly they won't be all plugged in at once. If we arbitrarily decide that maybe only 10% of those EV's will be plugged in at any given time we still have ~185mWh of energy available. That doesn't really tell us the instantaneous current we can draw (which is important) but It still puts things in perspective. If its mandated that all new cars sold in CA must be EV this untapped grid capacity only goes up. I doubt people would accept such a system though, even an opt-in one.

Disclaimer: Math isn't my strong subject so you may want to recheck my numbers to be sure but I think its mostly right. The arbitrary number selections spoil the results a bit though. If I had numbers on the average number of cars on the road at any given time I might get a better estimate of the average number of parked (and potentially charging) EVs. Boredom only motivates me so far however and I'm not in the mood to dive that deep today.

[1] https://www.energy.ca.gov/data...

The reason for only a single rocket motor here is because you can only throttle down rocket engines so much. If they used more than a single engine they wouldnt be able to gently bring it down or hover. Their later design SN8 is supposed to use 3 raptor engines in its "belly flop" test from a much higher altitude (1200m instead of 150m). The rocket engine design is also very new with lots of untested technology (full flow staged combustion cycle, 3d printed parts) so SpaceX is taking their time to make sure they get things like procedure and ground support equipment worked out. If you watch the first starship hop test with SN5 you can see some of the ground support equipment exploding and being sent skyward. In this latest SN6 test I didnt see any exploding equipment and they were able to launch much quicker and with less delays than SN5. Despite what some ardent detractor(s) in this comment section would say, these tests are on the path towards a full scale launch system which consists of the first stage "Super Heavy" and the second stage "Starship" which is designed to take astronauts and equipment to destinations like Mars and farther. What can cause confusion is that the second stage is also supposed to be able to launch and land alone, unlike more traditional second stages that are designed for vacuum operation only.

I like how the summary conveniently omits the fact that the very same day their app was reinstated, which is in the very beginning of the story. You kinda had to go out of your way to omit that information. The line that starts "On Wednesday, the antitrust subcommittee..." is well below the statement that the app was reinstated so you had to of read it but chose not to include it. Or you just copy and pasted someone elses summary with zero effort whatsoever. Who can tell anymore on this site. Quite a bit of dishonest reporting in my opinion. Seems like msmash has a bias against Google or they would have included Google's side of the story in their summary as well out of fairness.

Radiotrophic Fungus

Exactly this. 30 years of hearing it for me and my parents have also been hearing it since they were children. Its more of a boogie man here in California now. It absolutely WILL happen, eventually, someday. But right around the corner? I won't hold my breath (although I'll keep my earthquake supplies tip top).

As someone who has been using Windows 10 since nearly its release its about damn time they did something about the split in settings. I prefer the old Control Panel compared to the newer Settings interface but far worse is having half your settings split arbitrarily between the new and older interfaces. It was endlessly annoying to find an option missing from the new Settings dialogs and then have to dig around for a way to get at the old control panel interface for your particular issue. The network settings are a perfect example of this. You can manage many settings from the new Settings interface but to manage the actual interfaces themselves you have to go into the old control panel (and finding a button to get there isn't clear or easy).

So yeah change sucks, blah blah blah. Lets at least acknowledge that M$ are at least trying to fix their split settings interface disaster. Even if the new Settings panel is annoying, as long as it actually has all the same options I don't really care. In my personal opinion M$ needs to just start clean again, this time for real. No leaving in cruft from 20 years ago that some joe shmoe needs to satisfy his antiquated year old workflow (even if its just an interface people are familiar with). Start completely fresh and make it consistent across the whole operating system.