calmbonsai

I can concur on the short-term benefits for longer sets as well as the shorter recovery. Creatine is just one of those no-brainer supplements.

It's safe, cheap, and long-term-study proven to be extremely effective.

You will want to increase your daily hydration (at least for otherwise healthy men, a good sign is that you're "peeing clear") as Creatine does increase water retention.

No, they’re really not.

Turns out, sail-power scales sublinearly and, shocker, the wind isn’t a reliable source of power for the logistics demands of today’s supply chains.

We’re never going back to wind, but we will be de-carbonizing shipping either with ammonia combustion, fuel cells, or both.

WJW, what a blatant John Deere PR piece.

Even by modern WIRED's low standards of journalism, Boone Ashworth has managed to be subterranean.

Wait until the general public learns about the tech behind most of the currently fielded smoke detectors.

Also, this has long-since been obviated with active acoustic/vibration detection in modern rotor drive-trains.

All that said, every registered civilian and military chopper has high duty-cycle manual inspection of rotor blades too. They use both their Mark I eye-balls and ultrasonic transducers.

Being poor has zero correlation with being “lazy”.

Being poor is highly correlated with having little to no access to financial “leverage” so it’s very difficult to earn any sort of non-linear return on capital.

Additionally, the vast majority of your capital is solely the current market price of your individual labor.

FWIW, women are equally competitive in ultra-running, so I suspect the claimed advantages only apply at faster paces & longer gaits.

Given that I got my first computer at 12, given all the screen time with video games and programming in my youth + my day-job in software I absolutely guarantee I've clocked more hours on a computer than "with my family". I'm OK with that.

Computers have consolidated work, media, and entertainment all within the same "box" and even a good deal of close friend interactions are now mediated "on the screen".

I'm certain early hunter/gatherers would've been equally as shocked seeing factory workers "leave the home" and "constantly meet strangers".

Different praxis for different eras.

Yeah. I don’t see weather or theft addressed in this design.

I recall a wheel-mounted rotor system from a few years back that did address theft, tire-wear, and weather, but it suffered from far too little torque and very limited battery life.

Oh this guy again. This guy is a total douche. Not related, he previously tweeting being "inspired by" Martin Shkreli and writing letters to him in prison.

Something, something the company you keep.

There’s nothing quite like a poor analogy to trigger HN.

WJW. This entire article is assuming there’s a single measure of “success” in this endeavor and the simulation isn’t remotely anything like mowing an actual lawn.

I’m usually a huge fan of Pudding, but this completely misses the mark.

A recent video that addresses some of my concerns: https://youtu.be/zA9dGNEIOEY

I have not. I've also noticed that despite changes in regulation in the U.S., a whole variety of P.E. strategies are completely ignored by LLMs.

Good point especially wrt side airbags. I forgot about that.

AI, atm, is a perfect distillation of financial platitudes from ~10 years ago.

FWIW, bonds are no longer a hedge against equity unless they’re based against private equity and private equity is both more expensive and more performant than ever.

Yup. I'd say ICE cars peaked in UX, performance, and safety in the early 2000s.

Only the older ones without screens. A naturally aspirated inline 6 with a manual gearbox and 50/50 weight distribution is it's own special kind of bliss.

I only take it out maybe 20 times per year, but after merely 30s behind the wheel I remember why I keep it.

As if GitHub wasn’t already unreliable enough.

Fix. Your. Culture.

No. I am being critical of a company’s sales efforts as they have not addressed those salient challenges to bringing forth a completed commercial aircraft to market.

All of my prior points still stand. Show me where this company has addressed these issues.

It was more fuel efficient only over a very narrow band of the entire flight envelope. Also, it suffered from snap-stalls and very poor stall recovery due to its delta wing.

This is, primarily, why you only see delta wings used in super-sonic aircraft where these limitations are more than made-up for its ability to go trans-sonic with (relative) thrust efficiency.

No. I'm, in essence, saying the opposite. To use your analogy "as someone with 5 hours into driver's ed in my mom's civic I now realize how hard driving actually is and why ALL cars still have 4 wheels, still use a steering wheel, and still have seat-belts".

I don't see how having a marginal amount of single-engine aviation flight experience is relevant to Dunning-Kruger.

If anything, it's taught me how little I know about "real flying" compared to CFD and systems engineering.

Commercial aviation is conservative because aviation is "hard" and mistakes in aviation are "extremely costly".

Aside from regulation, the edge-envelope characteristics of a flying wing mandate fly-by-wire and, essentially, full-time autopilot.

Even then, good luck recovering when you, even marginally, exceed the energy*altitude parameters during take-off/landing during high wind shear.

Even B2s, with all of their on-board systems, have highly restrictive TOGA envelopes.

Please lookup the flight envelope, cruise fuel utilization, and stall characteristics of the Dyke Delta along with its cargo capacity.

Then you'll understand why so many Cessna 172s were built.

Yes, but this "innovation" (as sold) must exist as a viable commercial airplane.

So far, I see zero evidence that this company has addressed any of the aforementioned challenges beyond theoretical fuel consumption and theoretical passenger logistics.

As someone who has 31 hours towards their single-engine ppl cert, I absolutely abhor the stagnation of general and commercial aviation due, largely, to certification barriers, BUT even having a viable flight-worthy blended-wing concept does not make for a viable mass market product.

Not related, see the near half-century of "alternative" wing and airframe designs that are absolutely better at a few pieces of the puzzle, but also absolutely failed to be viable when integrated into a fully functional and safe airplane.

This company needs to focus on success in a niche product role before addressing the safety, integration, and manufacturing needs of the mass commercial aviation market. They are not (atm) backed by this sort of "patient capital".

Not related, see all of the VC and failures required by Whittle (in wartime no less) to develop the jet engine or Tesla's corporate journey from Roadster -> S -> Y.

Not this again. They’ve clearly hired a new PR firm

Suffice it to say, from stable aeronautics at-edge, jet way footprint efficiency, ground support efficiency, airframe pressurization, cargo & passenger logistics, lifespan, and certification, there are many, many reasons “tube + wings” is the dominant airframe architecture for all non-military aircraft.

You are correct. I do not follow that moral praxis.

Truth regarding his earnesty.

I never felt he mislead, but also at some point (much like ESPN’s Stephen Smith) he decided “winning” in punditry was more about by being loud than about by being right.

I don't know the man personally, but I was never impressed by his punditry even in the early PC MAG days and it got even worse when he started writing for MarketWatch.

He was always lots of loud platitudes or damnations with more noise than signal or thoughtful analysis. At some point, I just stopped listening and/or reading whenever his name came up.