We're talking about areas where the temperature is 110K. Cells that were once living could exist there, and persist for a long time, but wouldn't really be alive.

You could have a whole synthetic church where chatbot preachers give synthesized sermons to rows and rows of chatbot worshippers. No need for any humans anywhere in the process, once you get it started.

There's a very notable color change when they come into fresh water for spawning. Also the notable differences between steelheads and rainbow trout, which are the same species in salt vs. fresh water.

The answer is right there in the summary. Did you even read the story at all?

Now, in a new study published in Nature Communications, Notz, Gillett and their colleagues tweaked these models to more closely fit satellite data collected over the past 40 years. Using these modified models, the researchers projected ice changes under different possible levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Their paper suggests that regardless of emissions scenario, "we may experience an unprecedented ice-free Arctic climate in the next decade or two."

Maybe? They announced it in 2019. What have they been doing for the last 4 years if not fixing the mistakes in the initial design. Know what the world needs though? (it's halfway there) an Electric El Camino.

It doesn't get you power generation at all. You spend more energy making the material than you can harvest from it. It depends on a difference in moisture between the air and a substrate that has to be kept dry. Where's your continuously available source of dryness in a place where the air is humid?

Cheap bulletproof trucks might sell really well with a certain market segment.

I wonder how much of the original demo truck design will have survived into production.

Less so. To generate electricity from moisture in the air, the device has to be dry. It will absorb a certain amount of water, make some electricity, and then it will be saturated. At which point you'll have to dry it out again before you can get more electricity out of it. Drying it out will take more energy than you got out of it. There's no such thing as a free lunch. The publishers at Smithsonian know this.

It seems like Tesla was way out in front announcing cybertruck, and then the design languished for 4 years? In the meantime, Rivian has lots of EV pickups already on the street, and Ford F-150 lightning is here. Musk says they'll be shipping mid-2023, which to me means definitely sometime after that because he's always been overly optimistic if not deceptive about when Tesla was going to be able to deliver what.

We don't know how much acceleration it would take to prevent the most serious health effects. It might be a fraction of a g. We also don't know how big the wheel would have to be to prevent motion sickness because that also has never been tested.

It's in the hidden basement of a pizza restaurant, isn't it?

"Without a major trial to demonstrate the safety or any benefits of taurine supplements, the scientists are not recommending people boost their intake through pills, energy drinks or dietary changes. Taurine is made naturally in the body and is found in MEAT and shellfish diets, but the healthiest diets are largely plant-based. Some energy drinks contain taurine, but the scientists warn they also contain other substances that may not be safe to consume at high levels." Yep, checks out.

Not it isn't. They've got 200mW of transmitted power spread out over an area of probably at least 50 square kilometers in diameters, so an average power density of around 200mW per 2000 square kilometers, so about 100 microwatts per square kilometer. 1kW spread out over the visible side of the Earth from GEO is 8 microwatts per square kilometer. So it's higher but not even two orders of magnitude difference, and that's mainly because it's closer. But solar arrays in LEO are going to have a problem of either needing hundreds of downlink sites so there's always somewhere to put your power, or they'll have to be much higher and harder to aim for that reason.

It would be impressive, but it's impossible given the size of the transmitting antenna they had. I kind of don't see the point of the experiment because everything's too small scale to show that anything works well enough for power transmission from space. It's a just a space based radio with a flat antenna, really. As I roughly calculated, that 200mW is spread out over probably and 18 degree arc. It's inevitable given the physics of the transmitter. So they barely had an opportunity to demonstrate beam steering, even, because the spot size on Earth is hundreds of kilometers wide. To get that spot size down they need to go to a dramatically larger antenna or go to dramatically shorter wavelengths. But there's a problem with the latter. Once you get into millimeter waves, the atmospheric loss gets really high. So barely any beam steering precision at all is necessary to make that beam land where you want it. To get the spot size down there are two ways to go at it. One is to increase the size of the array. The ground spot diameter is inversely proportional to the transmitting antenna diameter. If you wanted a square kilometer collector, with 8 cm wavelength, at a range of 500km (which is still LEO), you'd need an antenna diameter about 160X as big. So about 48 meters across. And the phase control would have to be correspondingly more precise or you'd miss the target. How precise? Well the phase error across the antenna has to be small compared to the angle you're trying to hit, which in this case would be about 1km out of 500km of range. So a small fraction of a degree of phase difference or you miss the target. Let's call in 1/1000th of a cycle of phase control precision needed. So that's around 1/4 of a picosecond. I'm pretty sure that's beyond state of the art by a lot, and may never be practically achievable on an array of that size.