What I've read says that this is a modular system, likely some variants will launch small air to air missles, and others use large shotgun shells to take out drones.
2,040 karma · joined June 5, 2015
Could be titled "Hate Elon? OMFG would you have hated Edison! He was way worse!"
Scientists didn't start getting in the way of progress yesterday. It's a tradition:
When the dynamo prototype was finished, it operated so contrary to existing best-practice that Edison was mocked for it. John Tyndall — the physicist to whom discovery of the greenhouse effect is often attributed – wrote in the Journal of Gas Lighting, ‘It is difficult to adequately express the ludicrous inefficiency of the arrangement; but one thing is abundantly certain, and that is that the person who seriously proposed it was wholly destitute of a scientific knowledge of either electricity or the science of energy.’
Therefore, when it came to any experiment or application in the real world, the students were as hopeless as if they knew nothing. They had just been playing a symbol-swapping game.
In old experiments, just the light coming in under a door diminished melatonin in mice.
Static electrical field from the asteroid, stoked by the sun?
FWIW, other research shows that without soluble fiber, we can't absorb choline; we need a bacteria in the gut to transform it into a bioavailable form, apparently.
Choline is getting a lot more attention recently, from researchers.
Notoriously, MS is a disease of the last couple centuries, so far as we can tell, it simply didn't exist before that.
In the end if any one view got me kicked out of Philosophy, it was prematurely defending String Theory - just as a possibility. Politics and my being drugged and assaulted by a Professor were larger factors, though.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-attachment-theory-27953...
My experience raising children is that you're golden if the child knows you're on their side, putting their interests above your own. Helping them learn, not putting any moral puzzles in front of them that they can't easily solve, together with lots of misbehavior play so they can learn boundaries without actually misbehaving.
"Unconditional love" was just bad philosophy.
We are immensely better than other mammals at coping with alcohol (which yeast uses to poison other organisms and so preserve its food sources such as fruit.) Our livers prioritize neutralizing and excreting alcohol; letting other chemicals pile up meanwhile. Hence, just about any medication becomes more toxic if you drink alcohol at the same time.
We like the brain effects, but in truth every chemical reaction in the body is affected.
Speculating, however: some of the cancer risk from modern alcohol sources, however, may come from very long storage. Wine put down for more than the three years nec to sediment out lousy-tasting tannins continues to form Frankenstein flavor molecules (flavinoids) that have unusual tastes because they're random, they don't occur in nature. While flavinoids promote health, the Frankenstein versions of them likely don't and may be a potent extra source of cancer risk, even though we highly value those rare, weird flavors. Evolution hasn't necessarily shaped us to cope with these novel molecules, since we wouldn't have encountered them.
Of course, wine retains many of the very significant health-enhancing virtues of grape juice so it may often not do net harm (esp if the wine hasn't been put down for too long) but you can also buy grape juice.
But now the answer occurs to me: that's what Omicron and Krakus are doing, too. By now we've all been infected and reinfected, giving us all the value a killed-virus vaccine would have.
You get the RNA vaccine, then mild Omicron that doesn't kill, then mild Krakus that doesn't kill; and then you're as well protected as by getting the killed-virus vaccine, which just takes too long to create.
So maybe the real question posed by this study is, does a subsequent infection by Omicron reverse the toleration induced over time by the RNA?
But Microsoft (who I think probably got wind of this product) announced a very similar product (that never appeared as such, and did not appear at all for at least a decade. The problem was harder than it looked.) Our financial backers immediately and fully pulled out, verbal contracts notwithstanding. With no more cash, the company was dead. A few years later others created just part of this product, and raked in very nice profits for a long time.
If the same prototype had been built on the more modern compiler, that would have been the minimum viable product.
The more modern compiler was one able to use more memory as the 286 cpu allowed.
This is ideal.
But finding code monkeys that can also tapdance isn't trivial. For some companies, it isn't possible; or HR won't pay the price to hire them. Sometimes management wildly overestimates their technical chops and won't tolerate "bilingual" middle managers because such people are constantly advertently or inadvertently reminding top management of their actual lack of technical knowledge.
So this is where the Fridays scheme comes in; it requires you to gain that trust once, for the one day a week of self-directed work. You might still be able to do that. It also helps prevent dev team "tunnelling."
The author makes clear at the very end of the article that in some companies, even the amount of trust nec to pry loose one day a week can't be obtained, and the Friday scheme won't work.
But complexity (particularly if you can't squash dependencies) tends to go up by orders of power as sloppy code grows. I think that's their point.