It has *much* more to do with the memory card's erase block size.

NTFS wants to use a 512 BYTE or 1kbyte allocation unit size. (Dont believe me? Right click your system volume, and choose properties. See what your allocation unit size is.)

This size was selected because it is 1:1 the sector size of original winchester style hard disk drives, which makes those sizes the most efficient to transfer to or from the disk controller.

Modern drives tend to favor 4kbyte sized sectors, but still emulate 512 BYTE ones.

FAT had cluster (allocation unit) sizes quite a bit larger than this. Usually between 4k and 16k, but 32k and 64k clusters are supported.

For early flash memory cards, 32k and 64k cluster sizes were 1:1 what the eraseblock sizes of the flash array were, meaning having the filesystem use that size gave the best possible efficiency with the device controller.

SDHC and SDXC devices though, have erase block sizes that (cough), 'greatly exceed' (cough) what FAT32 can support.

ExFAT however, happily lets you use cluster sizes in the MULTIPLE MEGABYTES size range, allowing the flash makers to still have 1:1 cluster->erase unit parity, and maximized device IO efficiency.

Your camera formats that card as ExFAT because that's what the SDCard Assn demands.

The SDCard Assn demands it, so that they can reliably claim the write speeds written on the top of the card.

NTFS will annihilate flash cards with write amplification, and have piss-poor io performance writing to them.

Yes, and no.

For PCs of the late 90s and early to mid 00s, yes. 'To promote NTFS.'

For Memory cards?

No.

That's much more closely tied to 'convenience of the memory card consortium'. Specifically, 'It's VERY convenient for the filesystem to have an allocation unit size that is a whole divisible factor of the erase unit size, with 1:1 being *oh so VERY convenient*!'

For devices up to about 32gb in size, this 'convenient coincidence!' Held. Larger devices however, have erase unit sizes far too large for FAT32 to be 'convenient' for.

This is, (among other reasons), my microsoft created ExFAT. It's 'FAT', with 'Absurdly large cluster sizes!'

Exactly what the memory card consortium THIRSTED for.

It also let mictosoft get a shiny new exclusive patent that *everyone* would need to get a license for, which is what *microsoft* THIRSTED for.

This marriage of convenience saw fat32 not having 'official' large volume support for ages.

I would not at all be surprised if this recent change coincides with ExFAT patent expiration.

Every time I see this argument made, I want to see the Neilson demography for the show.

I do NOT hear the young people we have at work talk about this show in a way that's good. They talk about the Orville (which is rarely), much more than they ever have about Academy.

Oh, Absolutely. Young people in a series can very much be a very important asset to that series.

The trap, is wanting to shoehorn them into the "Idiot teenager" mold, or the "Executive Producer's Shameless Self Insert" mold.

Both of those are pure poison. People coming to terms with the realities that what they learned in school is not sufficient to cope with what they encounter in life, and that the relationships they forge with colleagues are essential to not only their futures, but their survival as well, makes for a fantastic story.

But that requires actual story telling.

That's the drama majors.

Here's the thing-- The actual startrek universe is *generally peaceful*. (or rather, was meant to be.)

This is bad for dramatists. There is no conflict, thus no climax. Big bad terrorists? Pure candy for a dramatist. "We have been at peace with our neighbors for 200 years, and have a large interstellar, free-moving society of excess" however? That's really hard for them to work with, which is why you get stuff like Troi+Worf, because they are desperate for some source of friction.

The notion that *THE MESSAGE* of the show is that *WE CAN IN FACT HAVE SUCH A SOCIETY, IF WE TRY*, is wasted on the dramatists. They dont care about such messages, That's why they want to rip that idea down, and replace it with blackjack and hookers. Sometimes literally.

The worst part, is that this kind of 'candy drama' does in fact appeal to the target audience you mention.

The reason startrek is dead, is a combination of:

1) We suck at doing narrative drama that isn't pure sex, explosions, and badguys.

2) At least half (statistically) of the US public audience wants candy drama made of pure sex, explosions, sad cliche's and paper-thin badguys.

3) People dont value the idea of presenting a peaceful and productive future that has its shit together, filled with competent people that aren't assholes, and so dont push for better.

Throw in hollywood having some kind of weird fetish for teenagers trying to 'run things' on top, and you have the whole ensemble.

The same one that hollywood always seems to think exists, *EVERY SINGLE TIME* they make a series about "Teenagers, with Teenager problems, Dealing with a grownup's world" ?

You know, when they make the entire cast have the mindset of a 6 year old who never learned that they cant just eat candy, now with sex hormones, and a lack of oversight?

There seems to be some demographic in Hollywood that *really* wants that kind of show (or really wants that kind of show to be successful), since they keep trying this formula and having it fail.

You'd think that at some point "Young Idiots with more hormones than intelligence--THE SHOW!" not working out, and being a dismal failure each and every time they've tried it, would send a message. It's happened with pirate movies in the past, and with other genres that Hollywood has taken a sharp rebuke toward, but this one never seems to have that issue.

It really looks like the target audience is *Hollywood Executives*.

One of the lessons we've had as the Federal, multi-branch nature of the US governmennt has frustrated Trump is that the government may be fucking us over, but it's not doing it in *unison*. It's doing it piecemiel, on the initiative of many interests working against each other, just as the framers intended. The motto on the Great Seal notwithstanding, there are myriad roadblocks to consolidating power in the hands of a single individual. It takes time and repeated failures. This is why the second Trump Adminsitration is worse than the first; they've figured out ways around things like Congressional power of the purse, put more of their henchmen in the judiciary, and normalized Congress lying down and letting the president walk all over them. It's a serious situation, although fortunately Trump isn't long for this world.

While that's true, a responsible generation aims to boost the next generation to a *higher* level than the education they received. The world has become more complex and faster-paced, and even if that weren't true, the consequenes of aiming high and falling short are better than the consequences of aiming for the status quo and falling short.

So while I'm 100% onboard with skepticism that technology will magically make education better, I think the argument that "the education I got worked for me should be good for them" isn't a strong argument. What we need is a better ecducation that would have been a better education fifty years ago: stronger math, science, and language skills, general knowledge, and, I think critical thinking and media literacy. Possibly emotional intelligence -- it's kind of pointless to teach people critcial thinking skills if they are carried away by emotions.

There are no economic or security reasons to blockade Cuba, so that leaves *political*.

It used to be believed that bullies were low status individuals who are lashing out out of frustration. But research has shown that bullying is an effective strategy for achieving and maintaining social status. In other words it's a political winner. So the focus of research has shifted from the bully to the people around him who enable the bullying. The inner circle are the henchmen -- people without the charisma and daring to initiate the bullying, but join in when the bully gets things started. Around them are the audience, the people who wouldn't risk participating but enjoy the bullying vicariously. And around them are the much larger group of bystanders, who don't approve but are waiting for someone else to stop the bullying. Then off to the side are the defenders, who stand up to the bully.

Perhaps the least appreciated supporting factor in the phenomenon of the high-status bully is the silence of the bystanders, which is dependent upon the perception of widespread approval. Since you can't visibly see the the line between the approving audience and the apalled bystanders, the silence of the bytstanders is absolutely essential in sustaining the bullying.

Lot's of Americans are apalled at the idea of using military force to inflict suffering on the Cuban people. But that's only politically advantageous *because* of *them*. Tney are indistinguishable from the relatively small number of people who are thrilled when Trump announced he can do anything he wants wtih Cuba. The gap between actual approval and *perceived* approval is absolutely critical in establishign and maintaining any kind of authoritarianism. This is why would be authoritarian leaders are so focused on punishing and marginalizing any kind of expression of disapproval.

Rei, it's always this way with you. Take the chip off your shoulder.

Firstly, I see you have this notion that martian rocks must all be igneous. This is not correct. That planet has had extensive geologic hydrolysis. Noteworthy shale formations have been found at Jezero and Gale.

https://news.mit.edu/2024/stud...

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....

The generalized composition profile for windblown dust is very high in basaltic minerals, but many noteworthy sedimentary-dominated structures have been catalogued, as above. Depending on where the regolith is sourced, its composition can vary widely. Blanket statements like 'regolith is not shale!', does not engender notions of superior knowledge. Regolith is the fine to midsized mixture of fractured rocks on the surface. Its composition will be determined by wind erosion and transport patterns, and which rocks became wind eroded. As pointed out above, large surface deposits of hydrolized mineral layers are present on mars.

Rather than pretend I dont know this, I instead correctly asserted that what you do with the collected dust after extracting the perclorate depends entirely on its composition, which will be very site-specific. The one making silly generalizations about the regolith is yourself, Rei.

But, since we are playing 'name the ignorance' in this exchange, your attestation stat perchlorate is 0.5% liberatable oxygen says 'Say i'm ignorant of basic chemistry without saying i'm ignorant of basic chemistry, and am bad at reading too.' The 0.5% statistic comes from the publication at bottom, and is the proportion of the regolith that is perchlorates. This is one of those lemons you seem to have a hard time with, so I'll hold your agitated little hand on this one.

Washing the regolith to remove the perchlorate is a requirement for *any* other use of that regolith. The chlorine it contains is a fouling contaminant for any other industrial process that you put it through. It's not optional. This stuff MUST be washed first. Even at this low of a concentration, its presence would destroy melting crucibles, and deleteriously affect the mechanical properties of resulting products.

Washing it is not optional. It's a required first step for any subsequent process.

As you have rightly pointed out, the water ice on mars is more 'frozen mud'. Cleaning the melt is going to be a necessary first step to using it *regardless*. That means either vacuum distillation, thermal distillation, or reverse osmosis filtration. Again, NOT OPTIONAL. This is necessary equipment that you need to bring, regardless. RO filtration is the least energy intensive of these.

The end products are clean water and perchlorate contaminated mud, and clean mud, with contaminated water.

Since we already have to bring the RO equipment, do it like this:

Permafrost goes in RO unit 1.
clean water and salty mud come out.

Dry, salty regolith, and the dirty mud go in an agitation and settling system. It gets completely cleaned through agitation and settling in a continuous inflow agitator, until water testing shows clean (salt free) water at the outflow. The dirty water is partially re-added to the salty mud in the RO unit, which is processing permafrost, to improve filtration. The remainder is low-sediment saline water, which is fed to another RO unit, giving potable water, and concentrated perchlorate saline solution as products.

This gets you cleaned regolith, concentrated perchlorate brine, and fresh water.

Of those, only one is a lemon. The perchlorate brine. The other two have industrial or immediate uses.

What do we do with this nasty bitter lemon? Do we complain about it, or put it to use? You seem to favor complaining about it, but that's dumb. Instead, it should be made into lemonaide.

Now that we have strongly concentrated the stuff, as a biproduct of producing other things this doomed colony needs, I remind you, the percentage of this stuff is going to be very much higher than 0.6% by weight, so kindly shove that out the airlock, and look at what perchlorate salts *are*: highly oxygenated alkali-earth and transition metal chlorine salts, with a very high recoverable oxygen value.

The very same publication that gives the 0.6% wt value, also gives us a generalized compositional makep of what perchlorates we have. They assay it as predominantly calcium and magnesium perchlorate.

Here are the percentages of oxygen (many wholly liberatable) by weight of various anhydrous perchlorate salts, including calcium and magnesium), and the thermal decomposition temperatures of each. (No electrolysis, just getting it hot enough. Though again, if we have nitrogen, we can use bioreactors for this very cheaply instead. Since thats not guaranteed, here's the thermal decomp route.)

Sodium Perchlorate (NaClO4): 52.3% liberatable oxygen by weight. Thermal decomp at 490-520C at 1atm.

Potassium perchlorate (KClO4): 46.19% liberatable oxygen by weight. Thermal decomp at 550-600C at 1atm.

Calcium perchlorate (Ca(ClO4)2): 53.56% liberatable oxygen by weight. Partial decomp at 150C(!), full decomp at 380-570C at 1atm.

Magnesium perchlorate (Mg(ClO4)2): 57.3% liberatable oxygen by weight (but requires more processing to get it all). Thermal decomp (to MgO) at 369-429C.

Aluminium perchlorate: (Al(ClO4)3): 58.9% oxygen by weight. Aluminium holds oxygen very tightly. Decomposition produces a mix of oxygen and chlorine gasses, with pure aluminium oxide as the end product. This is a useful substance, as it's a principle ore of aluminium, and a useful abrasive in manufacturing. Thermal decomposition begins at 150C, and ends at 450C. (But unlikely to be a major constituent of martian regolith)

Iron(II) perchlorate (Fe(ClO4)2): 50.24% oxygen by weight. Like Aluminium, it holds oxygen tightly. The decomposition initiates a redox reaction that turns iron(ii) into iron(iii), resulting in iron(iii) oxide (Fe2O3), and a mixture of oxygen and chlorine gasses. It functions as a catalyst in the thermal decomposition of other perchlorates. Decomposition starts at 100C(!)

Iron(iii) perchlorate (Fe(ClO4)3): 54.2% liberatable oxygen by weight. Basically the same as iron(ii), but is already oxidized to iron(iii).

Since we need to heat the now cleaned regolith to its melting point *ANYWAY*, (in order to get glasses, basalt fibre, or bisqued shales, as appropriate) we can use the same industrial plant to thermally decompose the perchlorates. If we're building sintering furnaces, we are building sintering furnaces. The decomp temps are comparatively low, compared to the temps needed for melting bassalt. The melting / bisqueing of the regolith will also evolve useful gasses we want to collect and refine later, because of local scarcities *anyway*, so having the equipment in one processing plant makes logistical sense.

Our outputs here are alkali earth oxides (mainly calcium and magnesium oxides, which are useful for making concrete) and chlorides (which are useful for an abundance of chemical processes), oxygen, chlorine, and water vapors, and industrial regolith end products (glasses, basalt fibre, or bisqued shale pellets or bricks, depending on what we fed in.)

Fractional distillation of the gasses will give you distilled water, liquefied oxygen gas, and compressed chlorine gas.

Noteworthy publications:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...

I am not interested in an an argumentative tit for tat Rei.

Perchlorates can be broken down through bacterial processes in water (but assumes you have the other things you need for life, which we dont here. Then again, I am open to nitrogen sources existing, but being undocumented. If they do, this by far the least expensive means), and through electrolysis with a boron doped diamond electrode set.

Which just so happens that this latter is also be your preferred method, since it breaks the water as well. The increased ion content of the water would increase bulk oxygen yeild over pure water.

Why are you complaining, instead of being informative?

As for mineral dusts being bad, it depends on how hygroscopic the dust is. Shales and clays are indeed bad (but can be sintered into bisque that is not). Fine silicon oxide species less so (but are better used to make glass). Sintered bb sized balls, being much more ideal.

Again, why be argumentative instead of informative?

The statement about bassalt fiber is not meant to be taken in a horticultural context. It's vastly more useful as a construction matetial for high pressure vessels, which any 'earth atmospheric pressure' cabin WOULD BE, compared the the outside pressure. Not all regolith compositions produce bassalt fibre when melted though, which is why there is the caveat. Even the powders not useful for either role (like calciferous minerals) have industrial uses as bulk fillers for plastic resins, and as cement.

  It's almost as if you are either unwilling or unable to 'make lemonaide' from the lemons, because you are used to using only abundant fresh fruit.

The notion that only perfectly ideal conditions or materials are required, rather than just preferred, is not consistent with reality.

A more honest appraisal looks at the costs associated with using what's actually available, and if they exceed operational thresholds or not. 'Is it cheaper than importing from Earth', and 'Can we actually systain the infrastructure required on-site' being the important questions. NOT 'can we compete with people in the market who have ideal feedstocks'.

People have made housing from regional materials for thousands of years. The kinds of conditions that forced that are present on both the moon, and Mars. Think of ways to make lemonaide, and less about how you dont have fresh guava juice.

I'm not so sure that perchlorates are such an awful sticking point.

(This is not meant to be a post in support of this study, mind. Please do not infer that it is.)

Perchlorates are a 'potentially useful' chemical salt, that form from slow dehydration and UV exposure in an oxygen rich envirionment. They contain a lot of chemically bound oxygen, that is relatively easy to liberate, producing reactive oxygen species when that happens.

Numerous findings of water ice have been made on Mars, which means it can be collected from the Martian envirionment. The primary ways perchlorates decompose is from exposure to water and heat. Perchlorates are also generally water soluble, which is one of the reasons they are harmful to human health.

Together, this suggests Martian regolith that is loaded with perchlorate is a potentially valuable source of easily extracted mineral-derived oxygen gas, which would be essential for a manned Martian colony mission. The extraction of this gas from the perchlorates would leave alkali-earth chloride salts behind in the reactor vessel, but these have other industrial uses, such as the production of hydrochloric acid, and the production of vinyl-chlorides.

Extraction of the perchlorates from the regolith through this industrial process would produce an abundance of potentially useful mineral dust to use hydroponically, or, if the composition is useful and fit for purpose, as raw material for sintered brick and basalt fiber.

The elements in low abundance are nitrogen and phosphorus. These are the real sticking points, from my understanding. The only sources of these would be from radiological processes, or from importation from earth. Both represent a very significant scarcity that would make the idea of 'colonization' infeasible.

Lunar regolith spectrometer data suggests that lunar soil does contain phosphorus, but in very low concentrations. Carbon and nitrogen are scarce.

The majority of publications about Martian regolith is about geochemical evidence of hydrolysis and water-erosion evidence, and talk about perchlorate levels. I have not seen good datasets detailing phosphate levels, or nitrogen sources. They may exist, but I have not seen it discussed much.

In 1790, the US population was 94.9% rural. There is no country. in the world today that rural -- Burundi, which looks like blanks spot in the world at night satellite picturs, is 88% rural.

The largest city at the time was New York, with a population of 33,000. Northern Manhattan was near-wilderness, mid-town was farms and country houses.

In 1790 the US was. country you could "police" with sheriffs and volunteer posses, largely to keep the peace. If you got robbed, you hired a private thief catcher. This works in a 95% rural country with just 3.4 million inhabitants. It would be chaos in a country 87x larger.

8GB is plenty of RAM for what most users use their laptops for, if the OS doesn't gobble it up with background tasks. Probably be a good idea to steer clear of Chrome as a browser on these things.

It's actually more like an iPhone 16 Pro runing MacOS in a laptop form factor. Apple basically rummaged through their parts box and pulled out a mobile CPU that'll deliver 50% more single core performance than what's in a high-end Chromebook with only 80% of the power draw. And Apple's got *massive* economies of scale on those parts, so they can afford to deliver a lot of bang for the buck.

The only place the Neo appears to falls short is in RAM, but this is *not* a power user machine, it's for basic office tasks and multimedia consumption. Realistically 8GB is plenty for many users.

In any case, the desktop isn't the center of most users's universe anymore; the switchboard of their life is their smartphone. This is a gateway drug to MacOS IOS integration, and eventually onto the upgrade treadmill. Users will switch seamlewssly between their iPhones and Neos all day long, with data on iCloud and iMusic etc., and when it comes time to upgrade their phone or their laptop, they won't be *stuck* exactly, but if they leave the reservation they lose a lot. But they certainly could upgrade to a *much nicer* Macbook....

It's no wonder the other laptop makers are sitting up and taking notice. Apple has set up a one way conversion ratchet for people tempted by a really nice and perfectly adequate entry level machine at an entry level price.Nobody else has the vertical integration -- chip foundries to device manufacturing, to software platform -- spanning desktop and phones that's needed to do this.