Let's say I write you a letter (on paper) and I encrypt this letter using a cypher that only you and I know. The government intercepts this letter and asserts it contains evidence of a crime. Are you or I compelled to assist in the decryption of that letter? No? Then why should electronic communications be any different?

Beyond that, how does preemptive invasion of the privacy of all persons (which is exactly what backdoors in encryption amount to) so that, at some future time, the government can sift the communications of those who may have broken the law not equate to a general warrant?

Worse than that was the federal government asserting that you could not grow wheat on your own land for your own use because such constituted "interstate commerce." Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) upheld that ridiculous notion.

I would love to see Rivian partner with someone like Winnebago and put out a small RV based on the same design. It would need a larger battery, but otherwise the basic platform would be great for a small RV.

So you don't list anything about CO2 or other pollution in the things you care about.

Of course, if you go with Green Hydrogen, the oil companies will flood the market with cheap hydrogen from gasified coal and natural gas. So hydrogen is an excuse to keep the oil industry going as-is. As someone who has driven an EV for nine years, they're a very solid technology, not some "silly approach."

Now hydrogen may make sense for aircraft or ships.

Yup, bought in bulk, a level 2 charger should be under $300. But that goes up here because you need devices that will stand up to a degree of abuse, and you need them networked to share power to manage consumption across the entire fleet at the location (which also reduces the need to upgrade the power from the utility). I could easily see that running to between $500 and $1000, even given that Amazon is likely buying these by the thousand. But that's still way less than the numbers cited in the summary. But I do agree that the cost of installation will be higher than the cost of the equipment.

That number seems wrong. A typical level-2 charger will run at or below 7kW. So unless they're putting in 400 or more, then that 3MW includes a lot of other power usage. And for a fleet, like this, they could easily install a thousand chargers that are configured to share power, so they would charge slower when all are in use, but it would still work fine: Some vehicles would get done early and start charging first, and as the spaces fill up, the charging rate would slow, but as those that need less finish, the others would speed up. That means they could install enough chargers for all their delivery vehicles now, and then upgrade the power when they start to have shortages.

That's fine. It's still putting out less pollution than the delivery vehicles they replaced. And it means as they switch to greener power, they improve their fleet without having to replace the vehicles.

Poor choice of name. When humans set foot on Valinor their entire civilization was destroyed in a cataclysm. Why do nerds always pick the most cringe names?

The conservation laws are statistical, at least to a degree. Local apparent violations can be OK, provided the system as a whole absolutely complies.

There's no question that if the claim was as appears that the conservation laws would be violated system-wide, which is a big no-no.

So we need to look for alternative explanations.

The most obvious one is that the results aren't being honestly presented, that there's so much wishful thinking that the researchers are forcing the facts to fit their theory. (A tendency so well known, that it's even been used as the basis for fictional detectives.)

Never trust results that are issued in a PR statement before a paper. But these days, it's increasingly concerning that you can't trust the journals.

The next possibility is an unconsidered source of propulsion. At the top of the atmosphere, there are a few candidates, but whether they'd impart enough energy is unclear to me.

The third possibility is that the rocket imparted more energy than considered, so the initial velocity was incorrectly given.

The fourth possibility is that Earth's gravity (which is non-uniform) is lower than given in the calculations, so the acceleration calculations are off.

When dealing with tiny quantities that can be swamped by experimental error, then you need to determine if it has been. At least, after you've determined there's a quantity to examine.

No, Google was kicked out of the country and blocked. That was after the color revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and Google was going to do one in china, too. Because of free speech. Google of all companies! A staunch defender of free speech! But they went evil despite don't be evil being their company motto and now they're the world's leading purveyor of censorship. For the same reason China was: it's a threat to government power. Sad!

[citation needed]

Aegis equipped ships have successfully hit ballistic missiles and satellites in testing (and probably under operational conditions as of last weekend), and both of those are, by definition, hypersonic targets. While the US Navy doesn't comment on what weapons a ship might be carrying, it's almost a certainty that all of them have some SM-3s in the magazines at this point.

The biggest current problem with the carrier groups projecting power is that their air wings have less combat power than they have had in the past due to both being smaller and composed entirely of strike fighters with relatively short ranges. Using half the Hornets as tankers solves the range problem but makes the availability problem worse in both the short and long terms. The F-35 appears to improve the range situation, shockingly (thought not by enough) and I would expect that, in war time, the Navy would probably augment the air wings significantly (there is definitely room on the decks).

As far as not getting close to anything that can harm them, any nation would be stupid to put its carriers any closer to anything that can shoot at them then it needs to. With that said, Ike is currently operating in the Red Sea where Iran's proxies can shoot at her and TR is currently in the East China Sea where China can shoot at her directly.

Is it?

I mean, I have no doubt that (barring something like Pearl Harbor) the US military would take the opening rounds of any US-China conventional war, but the but the supply of equipment possessed by the US Navy and US Air Force is relatively small, will attrit fairly quickly, and the relative industrial capacity and resource availability of the US and China today is very much in China's favor. It's doubtful that the US could execute a building program like it did from 1940-1945 (and especially 1942-1944) because it would take years to build the tools just to build the tools.

Because modern search engines (not just google) have decided that they know better than you and will often ignore your specific search terms to return the shit that they think you should know instead. Quoted search terms, exclusions, etc, are all cheerfully ignored to return a result set that is utterly useless for your purposes and somewhere there is a design team patting itself on the back for what a great job they've done.

Who are these savages? Name them. Our border is wide open and invaders are coming in. If that's not what a military is for, then why do we have one?