Those techniques won't work on overeating because you need to eat to live, you can't just stop cold turkey like with smoking.

Overweight people have it constantly hammered into them that they're endangering their lives, it's not a messaging issue.

And if it's so bad, why is having the meds such a problem? Their side effects are minimal and they work better than diet and exercise and lifestyle change. Most of the arguments seem to be based on some weird puritanism, where only the "worthy" should be able to weigh less.

The current administration is focused on making it look like they're doing something.

If they really wanted to regulate microplastics they'd regulate them, not put them on a list where they'll sit and do nothing.

"We spent a ridiculous amount of effort to stop smoking in this country but have done almost nothing in regards to obesity"

I disagree strongly. We have spent as a society uncounted billions on addressing obesity, including on government programs. The problem is it's just a harder problem than smoking.

At the end of the day, just about everybody knows obesity is bad and that you have to exercise and eat healthier. Lack of knowledge isn't the problem.

"You have to admit that the majority of people are not like diligent you but are more like those bakery patrons"

So then the drugs sound like the best option? The only other argument is basically that of a sociopath -- people should be punished because they don't have the willpower you think they do.

If the game bugs up 10% of the time I am out. I'd rather play it on Windows.

Unless it's a Bethesda game, in which case only bugging up 10% of the time would be an improvement over the Windows version.

Don't be such a hater, at this rate we'll reach 95% market saturation for desktop gaming by the year 3,562

Microsoft Office if Microsoft Office compatibility is what you are going for, which it seems these groups are.

At some point it just seems less exhausting to just use Office.

This is actually a smart move if they envision ever trying to go after other companies for using their code. "If it wasn't for public use, why didn't you even try to get the distributor to take it down?"

You're confusing the importance of avoiding Kessler syndrome in LEO with the difficulty of causing Kessler syndrome. GEO debris can potentially remain there for millions of years before interactions between the gravitational pull of the Sun, Earth, and Moon sufficiently perturb it. LEO debris remains for weeks to months. You have to have many orders of magnitude more debris in LEO to trigger Kessler Syndrome, where the rate of collisions exceeds the rate of debris loss.

The fact that a LEO Kessler Syndrome would also be short is something that exists on top of that.

It's also worth nothing that not only are modern satellites not only vastly better at properly disposing of themselves than they were in the 1970s when Kessler Syndrome was proposed, but they're also vastly better at avoiding debris strikes. All of these factors are multiplicative together.

Lol, I was thinking of this instead ;)

People forget that the primary concerns about Kessler Syndrome were about geosynchronous orbit, which used to be where all the most important satellites went (many of course still go there, but not the megaconstellations). It takes a long, long time for debris to leave GEO. But LEO is a very different beast.

They said it's internal rather than a collision, so probably a failed COPV would be my guess.

Yeah. In particular:

with fragments likely to fall to Earth over the next few weeks

LEO FTW. Kessler Syndrome is primarily a risk if you put too much stuff with too poor of an end-of-life disposal rate in GEO. End-of-life without proper disposal rates have declined exponentially since Kessler Syndrome was first proposed (manufacturers both understand the importance more, and do a better job, of decreasing the rate of failures before deorbit - in the past, sometimes there wasn't even attempts to dispose of a craft at end-of-life). And now we're increasingly putting stuff in LEO, where debris falls out of orbit relatively quickly. It's not impossible in LEO, esp. with higher LEO orbits - but it's much more difficult.

Or to put it another way: fragments can't build up to hit other things if they're gone after just a couple weeks.

And this trend is likely to continue - a lower percentage of premature failures, and decreasing altitudes / reentry times. Concerning ever-decreasing altitudes, we've already been doing this via use of ion engines to provide more reboost (with mission lifespans designed for only several years before running out of propellant, instead of decades like the giant GEO ones), but there's an increasing interest in "sky skimming" satellites that function in a way somewhat reminiscent of a ramjet - instead of krypton or xenon as the propellant for an ion engine, the sparse atmospheric air itself is the propellant, so the craft can in effect fly indefinitely until it fails, wherein it quite rapidly enters the denser atmosphere and burns up.

You'd have to first discover that they used it, then show that whatever code they implemented was based on yours I would think.