Someone must have told him Alberta has half as much oil as Venezuela, and it’s a whole lot closer.

Look, the problem with the boy who called wolf is clearly because that is a happens or not scenario. He could have kept this up indefinitely if he simply used an algorithm to learn the optimum true/false ratio and kept stringing the most people possible along forever.

I asked Grok if this was possible permanently stunting brain growth and capacity harming humans long term and allowing for easy manipulation and was told not to worry about it and to trust it implicitly because its answers are always correct.

The problem is across the rotation, so a bridge might be 50-100cm wide max, but then as long as the chamber is along the axis of rotation. Height is less a concern not because of much of a change in gravity direction so much as magnitude. Loading the bottom of your model with 1000g and the top with 500g isn’t really earth like where the difference in gravity is like 0.03% per kilometer or 0.05% per mile.

I heard he’s only interested if it can be fitted with a hyperbolic time chamber.

Assuming articles are correct it looks like it’s at a diameter of 49 feet or 15m. This is important because the loading is radial, not virtually parallel like under earths gravity at our scales. In order to be useful as a gravity simulator for high accuracy, you need the force of gravity to point the same way across your whole structure and when the radius of rotation starts to be less than roughly 10x the model width across rotation then the change in angle of gravity across the model starts to negate the benefit of similar measurement. It’s why on shows like the expanse they show water being poured in an arc, it’s true when the angle of rotation isn’t close to infinity like gravity but as far as a pouring simulator (or exact copy of gravity) it’s kind of hilarious.

Where did I say that the barrels haven’t been made for centuries? The barrel is still the most difficult and most important part so that’s why it gets the number.

^”hand made gun is not compatible in utility”^

The problem with barrels made this way is lack of rifling, trueness of the bore, and tolerances to avoid excessive blow by. Lack of rifling alone will make anything over 10 feet become less and less accurate. You can do this for a pistol infinity easier than a rifle because the bullet can bounce off the sides creating massive stress in a pipe already loaded to maybe 50,000 pounds per square inch. This causes the barrel to explode in an almost cartoonish fashion except the wielder is usually maimed worse than the guy who put his supporting hand over a revolver cylinder. This isn’t usually much of a risk because the bore is so oversized that excessive blow by means no pressure or velocity of the bullet, likely a subsonic shot closer to a mid range air rifle. Making a good barrel requires specialized machining equipment, without it you can’t do the worst kinds of offenses as the handgun is not comparable in utility.

So what, are you trying to turn this into a gun of Theseus philosophical question? When your barrel is done you simply buy another with the new serial number and it legally is another gun. Buy extra barrels and it’s just extra guns there really aren’t limits as to the number of guns you can own. Homemade barrels have no accuracy and there is so much blow by that the bullet has insanely slow velocity to the point of barely working. No one is limiting the number of barrels here, just marking the most important part of the gun instead of the least important.

What gets a serial number is the receiver, the part the holds the components together but is often the not a very stressed part and without tight tolerances. Therefore it’s usually quite easy to make one with hand tools, though it might take a decent number of hours. What can’t be printed is the barrel, even if a several hundred thousand dollar 3D printed metal process is used, it would still require more machining and CNC tools are probably cheaper and not much harder to use. But you can 3D print the receiver with a cheap printer and have it hold up a little while on some designs, then you just order the other parts which are “untraceable” but in reality they are kind of easy to trace just not marked with a number. It’s dumb because the number is not on the hardest to produce pieces and thus is the actual problem, not that a cheap plastic printer can print a receiver.

When it comes to efficiency, heat engines can be quite efficient here on earth in ambient gas or liquid states in terms of what fuel costs and process efficiency. This is because thermal equilibrium is with the environment, not absolute zero and in fact there is not a low thermal resistance path to the cold of space or we wouldn’t have our climates as we know them. This is why exergy or process efficiency has been known to mechanical engineering for well over a century and has been called exergy for 70ish years. What this means is instead of absolute efficiency, 1 - (lowtempK/hightempK) it’s 1 - (ambienttempK/hightempK).

This reflects reality in that you can’t reject heat to a lower temperature, but when you don’t pay for or in some real way render important the absolute view, it adds nothing to the understanding. This is why heat pumps can have 300% efficiency, it’s not a gimmick, it’s the reality of getting 2x the energy you paid for free by extracting it from ambient. Many electric cars use electric heat pumps because it’s so efficient.

Back to commercial power, every real process will have a discharge temperature above ambient as the gradient of temperature drives heat flow. This heat isn’t magic, special, or stamped on molecules, rather it’s only maybe low double digits of exergy wise. This is still enough to build a new system over the heat source above ambient and extract more energy but now it’s much less energy and vastly larger surface area so the heat flux drops like a stone. Commercial plants come with multiple states because fuel costs determine the bottom line, making exergy the most sensible approach. This means if you can take 3 extra stages of heat extraction and replace them with 2 you either save massively on construction costs, or perhaps wirh 3 stages eek out another 1 or 2% efficiency and save millions on fuel costs. This technology likely is going to apply to fusion reactors as most designs just use the proven and insanely efficient 80-90% process efficiency.

You mean loot them without accountability and leave them ruined and bankrupt? There was this phrase, something like might makes but I can’t remember the last part.

To be fair, it’s extremely common for medications to cause the effect they are trying to stop as a side effect. However, the rate is small enough that the general effect is a positive one and only the edge cases don’t benefit. This is also hard to explain to people, especially when they don’t seem to understand what statistically likely means.

Don’t worry, general intelligence will be here soon making it the most wrongerest in ways we can’t even fathom today.