Not only that, but there are quite a few scientifically sound concepts that escape the tyranny of the rocket equation. Pre-seeded trajectories, particle beam propulsion, sails etc. Breaking the wall of light might not be possible but beating the current rockets by orders of magnitudes is enough for interstellar travel. And that is only an engineering problem.
My personal favorite these days is innumerable 'smart' pellets, bacteria sized, steering themselves using albedo-changing surfaces toward the ship's magnetic sail to transfer their momentum, allowing for constant acceleration.
"Experts are divided as to whether the injuries and deaths were accidental or deliberate attempts to cause harm"
I mean, i don't know, if you can't come up with a single clear cut example in the wild in all of human history, i think that is enough to put them very low on the threat list.
Strawman. The claim disputed was specifically "There have been exactly 0 known deadly attacks from wild orcas in history.", not "they're low on the threat list".
That claim was made in response to a different claim above, to which "orcas have not been clearly shown to attack humans outside captivity" is a perfectly cromulent response. Pedantry like this really is annoying. This isn't high school debate.
The personal attacks on me with claims of pedantry are erroneous and offensive. What I noted is a textbook example of a strawman argument, and neither of the attacks on me are relevant or accurate.
B) according to the article there is no consensus among scientists that any of these incidents actually constitute an "attack". So if we are being this level of pedantic, its arguably true that "There have been exactly 0 known deadly attacks from wild orcas in history."
Given that orcas are apex predators, I think it’s worthwhile to make the distinction between death or injury of humans due to direct predation versus accidental or indirect means.
> It's a lot like when we "share" our worms with fish.
So, it is a relevant distinction, the theory of that comment is that they are using them as bait for humans. That they aren’t ever recorded as intentionally killing and eating humans is relevant.
They fight boats for other reasons apparently, maybe they or territorial, or maybe the boats are making some annoying nose?
Also my recommendation:
-Make the card vertical instead of horizontal (phones are held vertically)
-Add a +/- bottom on each end of the slider for fine tuning the ppi by 0.1 increment or lower,
-Allow to manually change the value in the field
I don't see how that would be relevant since the melting temperature of Silicon is already _significantly_ higher than temperatures on Venus can reach outside of reentry
A few years ago a popular idea was that our universe existed as an hologram on the surface of a black hole.
Recently I saw also a theory that black hole might not, in fact, exist as we thought, and may be instead something called 'gravastars', where large stars do not collapse in an infinite point but instead the mass reaches a maximum density and hardness and become sorts of empty bubbles.
Now this. It's not exactly a new idea, I remember reading about black hole cosmology 10 years ago.
Sooo... My uneducated, pop-sci fueled imagination now sees the universe as a mathematical function of a fractal looking like a shell with patterns on it, and those patterns interact or 'fold' in a way where the patterns themselves can be thought of as shells with patterns on them, and each shell creates something that, from the inside, looks like a new dimension of space or time, and what we think of as black holes are the next fold. Does that make sense?
It makes sense to me... I think. And I like this vision as well. It would explain the big bang (initial black hole formation), why the universe is expending (at probably non constant rates over time) which would be the black hole "ingesting" matter and growing and maybe also why time and space are one.
Same as you, a take from complete uneducated pop-sci fueled imagination.
There's an interesting implication to this. We assume that evolution happens when random mutations (similar to random bit flips, removal or injection?) occur and when the random result has an advantage, the mutation tends to remain in the gene pool.
Yet at the same time the result of this random code is extremely compressed, to the point we compare it to procedural generative code.
Not sure what we can do with this but it certainly seems like we can once again get inspired by nature on this one.
I think the parent comment exposes the obvious flaw of using plasma to drill:
Drilling with diamond bits uses fluid, which is uncompressible. Drilling with plasma uses gas, which is compressible. No matter how thick the obsidian layer get, there is a critical pressure differential between outside and inside and it will crack and collapse.
You could probably use significantly less coolant if you're using heat pipes. The coolant is mainly gaseous and only a small mass remains liquid during the cycle
There is a certain amount of energy you need to move from the chips to the atmosphere or to the geology, and a liquid coolant vs a gaseous coolant will make a BIG difference in how much of that heat you can move. I don't know why I am arguing, putting a data center on the moon is dumb as hell.
My personal favorite these days is innumerable 'smart' pellets, bacteria sized, steering themselves using albedo-changing surfaces toward the ship's magnetic sail to transfer their momentum, allowing for constant acceleration.