Maybe I'm incredibly lucky, but I'm just a no-name researcher at a mid-tier university, and I have a server with 8 A100s in it. Calling a machine with 4 A100s in it a "supercomputer" sounds like a stretch.

It was designed by people who are too smart. A wonderful language on paper, but very hard to use by us dummies.

I mean, maybe it's worth talking about what object-oriented programming has done to major cities.

This paper has uses so many assumptions to reach such an old and obvious answer as to render itself practically useless. I guess the bar is pretty low at the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. Then again Loeb is known for dressing up homework problems and publishing them as amazing revelations. Somehow the reviewers haven't caught on.

As a fellow unfiltered mouther, I'm glad that Clarkson's boot has had repercussions. The show was about cars, not politics and diplomacy.

Or do it under the ocean. What happened to the ocean floor habitats that 1950s promised us?

Neutrons will travel at the speed they are emitted, not the wind speed, because they are uncharged and don't interact with the plasma.

This is inaccurate. Solar wind and Galactic cosmic ray protons and the infrequent gamma-ray will not make the water radioactive. Neutrons are non-existent out there, and electrons and X-rays will get stopped by the hull.

Gamma rays can cause nuclear excitation, but that usually decays within minutes of the hit, and is proportional to the primary incident radiation anyway.

Radiation on the surface is simple. Just spend most of your time underground, especially during a solar flare. You'll probably want to do that anyway, for cost and safety of creating a pressurized habitat.

By the time the DHS was formed, COBOL was already obsolete. They should've never used it in the first place.

Astrophysicist here. I read his paper, and it strikes me as an engineer's approach rather than an astrophysicist's. He builds up a very complicated framework from many, many assumptions and gets a very complicated model with "more accurate" solutions.

An astrophysicist learns where to make simplifying assumptions that ease the calculation and make the relationships clearer without sacrificing too much accuracy. The less complicated the model, the less likely you are to be wrong (Occam's Razor).

Now I don't know in this specific instance if a simpler model is viable (I'm not an asteroid specialist), but the difference between his paper and all of the other hundreds of astrophysics papers I've read was stark. The sheer length of the paper suggests that it is highly improbable that there are no mistakes at all, even for someone of his intellectual capability.

Now, couple that to the lack of a public release of his analysis code, and you have a conclusion emerging ...

Hedging our bets seems

Do they mean Andrew Strominger at Harvard? I've never heard of Andrew Stromberg.

Agreed. It's just doublespeak.

If he really wanted to help, he would make MRI cheaper, because it is far more informative than ultrasound.