Correct: I do not grasp. I think you simply don't notice where the equator was, because it's so common for it to be below the centerline that nobody notices or pays attention.

I gave links to six examples of the common ordinary maps you see all the time; I could have given a hundred. Did not even one look famililar?

Here's a clue. If on a Mercator projection Antarctica isn't larger than all the other continents combined... the equator isn't centered.

You already explained where, and why. This is why they put the equator below the center:

"Dark" just means "we can't see it". Anything that isn't either emitting light or other electromagnetic radiation, or reflecting light from something it's close to that's emitting light or other electromagnetic radiation, is "dark".

The data is, if you look at the motion of the stuff we see, and calculate the motion based on the masses of stuff we see, the trajectories deviate. The obvious thing to guess is that it's the gravity of something (or things) we don't see. This has worked before-- for example, this is how Neptune was discovered; it's how close binary stars were discovered.

An alternate hypothesis is that there's some other force pulling or pushing on them, or else gravity doesn't work the way we think it works. Either way, you're hypothesizing something unknown.

Every large galaxy is believed to have a black hole. Dwarf galaxies (like the Magellanic Clouds) may or may not.
  https://www.astronomy.com/scie...
  https://astronex.net/why-is-th...
  https://science.nasa.gov/missi...

Exactly. That's what happens when you move the center of the map up above the equator; the bottom part of the map goes off the page. If you kept the bottom part on the page, the equator would be in the centered. By definition.

Did you not actually read what I posted that you're responding to?

A Mercator projection which actually showed the entire world would be infinite in size, because the north and south poles project to + and - infinity. Every Mercator projection leaves out parts of the world near the poles. However, the standard Mercator projections leave out more of the southern polar regions than they do of the northern polar regions. Which means the equator is below the center of the map.

I suspect you're so used to it that you don't even notice that in most Mercator projections the equator isn't in the middle:
  https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w...
  https://printable.rhinoplax.co...
  https://image.shutterstock.com...
  https://scholarlykitchen.sspne...
  https://www.mapsales.com/map-i...

For comparison, here's a Mercator projection with the equator in the middle: https://www.alamy.com/politica... Antarctica is larger than all the other continents combined!

No satellite can read text messages through your car window.

Look up diffraction-limited image resolution

I am not sure that the UN should be in the business of defining a "standard" map projection-- why shouldn't everybody use the map that they find most useful? But if they have to set one single standard map, I'm happy it's not Mercator, because, indeed, the Mercator projection is misleading on area.

In its defence, though, while Mercator distorts areas, it keeps shapes correct (locally), and it also keeps directions correct. Small-area accuracy and correct directions are more important than the large-area distortions for most practical use.

Any projection that keeps areas correct must distort shapes. You can't mash the surface of a sphere onto a flat surface without distorting something.
My favorite is the Lambert equal-area projection, which actually gives you the impression of being a projection of a globe, but you can't win-- all the projections have flaws.

I'll also note that the new UN standard map has moved the equator back up to the center of the map. Pretty much every Mercator projection you ever see has the equator moved toward the bottom, because (1) the far southern reaches are not important to people in the northern hemisphere, and (2) if you put the equator in the center, the Mercator distortion makes Antarctica absolutely HUGE, which puts too much of a highlight on how inaccurate the projection is.
 

I will also point out that the UN logo itself shows a polar view, different from ANY of the other views (but very clearly is favoring the northern hemisphere).
https://globalsymbols.com/uplo...

Exactly. Automation of processes that used to be expensive is an excellent example of how treatments that started out outrageously expensive become cheap and routine, and dirt-cheap genetic testing is the poster case for this,

The trend in the past has been that a medical treatment is incredibly expensive when first introduced, then decreases in price as it becomes further down the learning curve, until eventually it's commonplace.

Sure would be nice to be able to get away from requiring human donors.

ICE cars are way down the learning curve. At this point, if they catch fire, it's because yes, ICE cars sometimes catch fire. It's no longer realistic to use the excuse that oh, it's a new technology, they will engineer out the bugs.

I've seen many examples of ICE vehicles catching fire. It is absolutely not true that they are "electrical systems of the cars catching fire." ICE cars catching fire are simply so commonplace that they don't even make the papers, unless some celebrity like Jay Leno is burned.
  https://normantaylor.com/blog/...
  https://thedailyautomotive.com...

Not running a malicious AI doesn't do anything to protect YOU.

You are at risk from OTHER people running a malicious AI.

--thanks for the correction, by the way.

Yes, I think you're right -- when I do the calculation with your numbers, I get the same result.

I'm too lazy to go through my calculation and see what I did wrong, but probably somewhere in the conversion from units of BTU-hours and tons of ice to kilojoules and seconds.

Interesting calculation. I think the efficiency loss in trying to cool all the way down to ice is probably not worth the benefit of a lower amount of water used.

Water heat capacity is about 4.2 kJ/kg per degree, so if we cool the water, say, ten degrees (C), for 4 kW of cooling for 12 hours we'd need about 4 tons of water (*). Seems like a lot, but water is cheap, and the tank would be a cylinder .64 meters radius at the base by 2 meters high, bigger than a home water heater, but still not too huge to put in your basement.

Ice would be better; the lower temperature would make heat transfer faster. On the other hand, you could circulate the cooled water in the same loop as baseboard hot-water heating, so in some ways it's simpler.

--

*(unless I screwed up the calculation, which is easily possible.)