FourHand451

You can buy "skylights" that are essentially internally mirrored tubes that accomplish essentially the same thing. I don't believe they're super cheap right now, but I imagine they could be if they became more widely used.

I know someone who installed one in their bathroom and have been surprised at how well it works.

I think that's a good idea in theory, but it still relies on the car knowing when it's looking at a solid object with 100% accuracy.

I couldn't help but hear this in my head in the voice of Montgomery Burns.

It's been a while since I've rented, but I assume this is covered in the agreement when you make a booking. I'd guess their butts are covered from the fraud perspective. Maybe misleading advertisement though?

Could you say more?

How many places in a densely populated city can you precisely drop a bomb with no risk to civilians? Yes, technology has improved, but my point is that better tech doesn't just automatically make war less awful.

I don't believe the people operating the weapons are different in ways that make civilian casualties obsolete. In WW2 it was a decision to bomb population centers, not an accident. That decision can be made today too.

That would be great, but why would one think that?

Terry Pratchett had a plan for things he was working on at the time of his death:

> Pratchett told Neil Gaiman that anything that he had been working on at the time of his death should be destroyed by a steamroller. On 25 August 2017, his assistant Rob Wilkins fulfilled this wish by crushing Pratchett's hard drive under a steamroller at the Great Dorset Steam Fair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Pratchett#Unfinished_tex...

Their government programs have hit some snags recently too. The KC-46 and Starliner programs have not exactly been smooth money-makers for them.

I think you may be slightly misinterpreting the parent comment. When they say the NIF's task is weapons research, I think they meant that the facility was built with that task in mind. When I read your comment it sounds more like you're talking about the current task of the people working there.

Both valid points of discussion, but different ones.

What exactly do you mean?

Is there a reason you feel they are less prepared than any other organization?

The practices you're describing largely seem sensible, but I think they are also beside the point made by the article, namely that Texas seems to emit more gas per unit of production than a neighbor.

> gas doesn't have a ton of value in the Permian basin.

You note this, but the assertion that selling or using the gas to run generators are top preferences for producers seems contradictory, or perhaps a bit oversimplified.

If gas is abundant and has little value, I would expect there would also be little incentive to sell it when it isn't trivially easy to do so, or to store it for later use running compressors or generators. Cheap gas would mean venting or flaring are the least expensive option in more situations.

You can't use classical physics to calculate the momentum of a photon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Relativistic_energy_and...

So, perhaps a good time to start a new business selling inexpensive RISC-V based micro computers?

Non-meta Answer from user @bruce511: "Russia doesn't have much in the way of non-polar coast (well, not today European end) so they've been breaking ice since forever. The US by comparison has very little polar coast and so less need for icebreakers."

What makes zippers such a tough problem?

Perhaps I'm out of the loop, but why do you need a smartphone for gym access?

I agree that making a clear demand seems more effective if possible, but I don't think disorganization necessarily implies that displeasure is only momentary and involves no risk. Many people can be upset about something and agree on a way to protest it without agreeing on what the solution should be.

I think that's good advice in principle, but the practical limitation is the ability of a bunch of redditors to come to an agreement on point #2 on short notice.

Maybe they figure the implied message of "you are doing a bad thing we don't like. Don't do the bad thing" may be enough to get some change to happen, if change is a real possibility.

Can you please elaborate?

Tangentially related question: I've always wondered why afterburners on more modern Soviet/Russian engines seem to glow blue, while European or American jets seem to have a more orangey glow. Anyone here know why?

To sail the ship around? I'd think the smelting operation would cover those costs.

I agree with what you say, but for me it's easier said than done. There's a disconnect in my brain because it feels like the rewards for taking the extra time and effort to care about the product tend to end up mostly in the pocketbooks of upper level management.

Some days the idea of making a better product because it makes the lives of users better is enough motivation, but not most. I wish I could consistently be more selfless in this regard, but when I'm tired or stressed or depressed, my lizard brain needs a more direct incentive.

Certainly I would agree that letting go a lot of experience folks would have an effect on the product.

However, I think this comment could use some more justification:

> But unlike previous generations though (heh), many of them are not even slightly interested in learning from the previous (seasoned) writers, whom they view as inferior for some reason.

Claiming that a particular generation is really different from another in this sort of way is something I'd need to see a lot of evidence to be convinced of. Kids trying to do their own thing and middle aged folks lamenting "kids these days" is a tale as old as time.

I'd second the idea that this was not the major thing holding back adoption of the metaverse.

Frankly, even if they announced a program to give free Oculus headsets to anyone who wanted one, I still wouldn't want to start using the metaverse. Judging by the other comments on this post, I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way.

I don't think any of this is alarming. Nor a reason we should stop trying to solve new problems as we learn of them.

I think the larger point is that there isn't a simple, obvious, "Why don't we just do XYZ?" solution to the problems being discussed here.

Or perhaps the opposite. If the plane is saying it's lighter than expected, they may think too little fuel has been loaded.

Echoing your sentiments, it's worth noting that we've already launched nuclear power generators on a number of NASA missions. Not the usual type of fission reactor, but radioactive material nonetheless. So the risk certainly hasn't been considered intolerable so far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...