Numerous very experienced people have correlated a great number of the so called "drone" sightings with the ADSB tracks of legitimate aircraft and not one shred of evidence has been presented that these "sightings" are actually drones operated by Russia or other bad actors.
Why would you think this is about Russia? This is about anyone who flys drones close to Airports without explicit permission. And yes, anyone doing that is by definition a bad actor.
Python has built-in support for arbitrary precision integers by default, with no 3rd party libraries needed.
In Python, you can precisely calculate 100 factorial with a default installation. You can't do that with C++, Java, or Rust.
I can do that with my 1989 HP48SX . For arbitrary precision I have to use an additional library though.
Sorry, I don't have time to critique people who have alternative theories of physics; there's too many of them out there, and I've noticed that people who think they've invented new physics come up with newly revised theories faster than you can point of the flaws in their previous ones.
For the thermodynamics of adiabatic lapse in atmospheres, try, say, https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ther...
Thanks for your answer, its an answer I heard too often to complain about you.
Just note, that it is exactly this adiabatic lapse that confused me 30 years ago, and after investigating, I found no reasonable explanation in current science. In fact I found relevant issues in Boltzmanns "Vorlesungen über Gastheorie", and I found people who experimentally showed that this law is not universable applicable. I am aware of the term "alternative truth", but in that case, I would just say that it is the second law, that science handles like a religion of galileos times.
Gas in a gravitational field does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. If you drop down in a gravitational potential well, you release energy.
Thats what I am questioning. In fact I have written a short article because to explain the situation that can be found at https://azouhr.github.io/2ndla... .
Basically, whenever a particle is flying down (randomly) it increases speed and becomes warmer, and when rising, the speed is reduced and it becomes colder. This is exactly what you see in Atmospheres, where external radiation is not too high to change the behavior.
I would be more than happy if you were able to show me the error in that thoughts, however I also learned in the meantime, that Joseph Loschmid found the behavior in 1875 (yes, that is 19th century) and was at least partially confirmed by Maxwell. Since 150 years, science has not been able to find an error in what Loschmid postulated. Therefore even thought I came to the same conclusion, I am by far not the first person to find this.
the idea that our universe will end in heat death has escaped the dull, technical world of academic textbooks.... And yet it could be badly wrong. If dark energy weakens all the way to zero, the universe may, at some point, stop expanding.
"Heat death" is a thermodynamic concept, not a cosmological concept. It occurs because energy dissipates to maximize entropy. If the universe stops expanding it does not prevent heat death from happening: when stars burn up their fuel they stop glowing whether or not the universe is expanding.
Actually this thermodynamic concept is just an assumption that cannot be challenged by scientists without loosing all their reputation. It is not accurate however, because if you manage to macroscopic sort the particles into high and low entropy particles, you can gain exergetic energy from a single energy pool.
This sorting is automatically true for example for any atmosphere (read gas in a gravitational field), and thus the whole idea of heat death is based on wrong assumptions.
Russia has enough nukes to be worth being afraid of.
No war can be won with nukes. Nukes are a lose-lose weapon.
So, regardless what some "authorities" say, this apostrophe will always tell something about yourself if you use it.
Creating an energy distribution from a single temperature requires energy flow from cold to warm, which is forbidden in the second law.
I have written down the details in an article (too long for here, but still
just a few pages) that can be found at:
https://azouhr.github.io/2ndla...
Feel free to tear down that article, but please give a good reason.
A similar trick is used by SUSE for SLE and OpenSUSE to avoid the latter receiving extended support which rivals SLE by reincorporating too many of the former's patches into the latter.
You are probably unaware, that openSUSE Leap 15.5 is binary identical to SLES15 SP5. SUSE makes it really easy to evaluate SLES by giving the customers openSUSE Leap, and allowing them to switch to the supported variant later on, even without reinstall.
The only thing you should be aware off is, that not all packages in openSUSE Leap are available or supported from SLES.
I mean they are an "Open Source" company, not a "Free Software" company. Those 2 words are not synonyms.
The RHEL EULA is not compliant with the OSI Open Source definition. Thus all software that has the RHEL EULA applied to it, is not Open Source anymore.
Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.