...... after going through the process to submit the claim, I'm told the compensation is a $30 Anker gift card redeemable on their website or a replacement battery pack that won't ship until at least September! Better than nothing, but I'm in need of a pack to take on travel next week. FWIW, don't try to submit the claim on a mobile browser without using the desktop version. There is a pop-up at the end you won't see on Chrome otherwise.

Based on what I've seen in my technical area, your conclusions on the quality of most patents are correct. Many granted patents should have been rejected either for prior art or for lack of technical details. The article cited posits that the review process is broken based on the number of claims rejected on appeal. I tend to agree but there is a conflict of interest as the USPTO is self-funded. A reduction of the number of issued patents would decrease the renewal fees generated. Thus, the Office has a vested interest to grant as many patents as reasonable and let the courts and the PTAB sort out the issue of infringement and invalid claims.

The most egregious example of an awarded patent that had no merit was one from an 'inventor' in Nepal for autonomous control of aircraft that was just a bunch of language about what it would do with no supporting technical details other than a two box diagram supposedly showing how it works. I've also seen major corporations get patents for tech that has been proven not to work (based on open research literature) or infringed on previous patents (granted, the patent had expired).

It seems like there needs to be some changes to the process to make patents more meaningful.

The technique of taking in-flight Schlieren images comes from the work of Dr. Leonard Weinstein at NASA Langley Research Center back in the early 90's. The first image using this method was taken of a T-38 supersonic trainer in 1993 (https://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Schlieren/HTML/EC94-42528-1.html). Schlieren imaging, though, dates back to the 1800's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieren_photography) and is a common flow visualization technique for supersonic wind tunnels. It allows one to see density gradients (like shock waves) in the air and is similar to the distortion effects you can observe looking at a backlit candle plume (although that is technically called a shadowgraph).

I appreciate what they have done in assessing the economic impact of NASA from the perspective of money spent vs. return per state (no surprise there is a direct correlation between impact and whether a state has a NASA center in it). It would have been better to look at the impact of the various research areas to see which areas of investment provide the greatest return. They did break out Moon-to-Mars and climate change, but what about the work NASA does in aeronautics? There are a whole slew of programs and projects related to technology development for electrified aircraft, advanced air mobility (think air taxis), next generation commercial aircraft, air traffic management, unmanned air vehicles, commercial supersonic aircraft, vertical lift (helicopters), etc. There is also the significant research output created on advanced materials (the most licensed part of NASA's patent portfolio), sensors and measurement methods.

It wouldn't be surprising to me if the relatively small investment in these areas (~5% of the Agency's budget) had an outsized impact on the US Economy given that the aviation sector is a $1.3 trillion dollar part of the GDP. NASA (and its predecessor, NACA) helped develop many of the technologies that enabled the industry to grow in the 120 years since the Wright Brothers first flight.

I see some pieces coming together (puts on tin foil hat). WhatsApp is by far the most popular way to communicate in Brazil and Italy. People, businesses and even the government use it for messaging and calls because it's way cheaper than traditional methods. A recent conversation with a native Brazilian revealed that WhatsApp use doesn't even count against mobile data caps there so it is, for all intents and purposes, free (which explains it's popularity). So why would the mobile providers be doing this? Maybe Zuck is slipping them a subsidy in exchange for all that lovely AI training data and a consent clause in the 'Terms and Conditions'? One wonders.....

I used my Timeline data in 2018 to discredit erroneous speed radar readings by a state police officer. With the raw data and some fancy math, I showed that I was travelling at an average speed of 62mph at the time his 'calibrated' equipment clocked me at 81mph. I was very thorough in validating the data and the accuracy of my math (day job: research scientist). When presented with this analysis, the prosecutor decided to drop the case.

So there IS a use case that could benefit you.

Point of fact: plans for a new AF1 started under the Obama Administration.

You need to read more about current research on sonic booms. NASA is, at this moment, building a low-boom flight demonstrator to show that you can fly supersonic over land and not create the window-rattling effects of a Concorde. Research has been ongoing for the past few decades with several major aerospace companies and has produced a much better understanding of how's and why's of boom generation and mitigation.

In response to the question 'Why would you like to attend North Carolina State University?', I wrote the following very candid and succinct list:

1. It's close.
2. It's cheap.
3. I can get in.

Approximately four years later, I had a BS in Aerospace Engineering.