Re: powerless women
Do you realise "yours truly" refers to the writer/signer of a text? In other words, you are saying there that YOU, Waseem Alkurdi, are priviliged folk not bothering to share the load.
4421 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Mar 2012
"This idea that you can put an arbitrary value on you labor just because its you tends to afflict members of the middle classes who've never had to deal with the realities of the labor market. "
I think you mean upper classes, because most middle class income families nowadays have to work just as hard for their income nowadays.
I'm pretty sure we've seen a Bastard Boss From Hell before. (I seem to recall it involved an extended stint on the Helldesk to wake up that boss. I think it also ended with that boss getting a bit too big for his shoes and having ideas conflicting with the BOFHs)
My theory is that a VPN service that needs to pay dozens (or hundreds) of big (Non-IT) Youtubers to talk up their product is probably not a VPN I would want to use. This seems to confirm it.
(Seriously, for a while you could barely watch a youtube vid without it turning into a NordVPN ad at some point)
You are correct. I mainly remembered the dates the US and USSR stopped nuking their own people. (If Japan and modern Japanese culture is proof you should never nuke a country twice, the US must be proof of what happens when you do it over 400 times)
I forgot about the last series of French tests. Who cares about the French anyway :)
That just proves the government is paying less subsidy to offshore wind than to this particular nuclear plant. Not actually a proof for the actual cost per installed GW capacity. (Which AFAIK is pretty stable as offshore work hasn't gotten cheaper and the cost to install is mostly labour and fuel. At best some advances have been made in construction methods allowing slight cost savings).
"UK wind farm capacity factor is about 40%"
Citation needed.
Latest numbers I've seen were roughly 20% for on-shore and up-to 33% for off-shore (But highly variable by wind direction as windmills in large parks interfere with each other in difficult to predict ways)
"Capacity factor of conventional power stations is 50%-80%."
Yes, but that's 50% for fast spooling single stage gas-turbine plants (Used for peak leveling and compensating for renewables variations) where it is that low because of the nature of peak leveling plants. And (Usually) 80% (but easily above 95%) for multi-stage baseload plants that provide a constant and predictable level of output that renewables will likely never be able to match at that scale (GW output). Baseload plants are getting worse and worse capacity factor as they keep having to shut down because renewables are suddenly providing a lot of output. This is terrible for their longevity and efficiency.
"And the cost of new offshore wind is now substantially lower than new nuclear including balancing costs."
Again, citation needed. Offshore (without the subsidies) is hellishly expensive due to the amount of effort and material required. Nuclear is hellishly expensive because of administrative burdens.
The thing is, no-one of the "OG nuke owners" has allowed a nuke to go Boom since 1991. The largest arsenals consist of weapons with cores produced roughly 50 years ago. Nobody really knows what the effects of this long term storage are in terms of nuclear decay products. Both the US and Russia are getting twitchy about not being able to just make one go Boom. (It's one of the reasons the US built the Z-machine and the NIF). The US doesn't currently have a production facility for new cores and is only doing refurbishment of existing ones.
"An even more delightful trick is to set a specific passphrase that causes the auto wipe if entered. Cops want access? Give them the "wrong" password & laugh when they realize they're now holding an expensive paperweight."
Congratulations, you've just added "tampering with evidence" and possibly "Obstruction of justice" to the charges against you. This is a REALLY stupid idea as it provides an easy crime for them to hang you with and then they'll have plenty of time to figure out how else to kick you while you're down. You're not the first to think of this and though a killcode case hasn't gone to court yet so far as I can find, it's very likely to be illegal. (Remote wiping certainly HAS gotten people in jail)
The succes rate of SpaceX you are now harping on about is ONLY the recovery of the first stage of the launch vehicle. Something not ever done by NASA (or anyone else) and only sort of attempted in some experimental vehicles (not very successfully I might add).
If we look at primary mission succes they've lost 2 vehicles (one during flight due to a strut failing in the second stage LOX tank, one on the launchpad during a static fire test due to unforeseen cryogenic effects causing defects in the COPV tank). They further lost a secondary payload (but successfully delivered the cargo Dragon capsule to the ISS) due to an engine anomaly, which they could have recovered if the primary customer (NASA) had allowed an extra engine ignition.
67 out of 69 launches successful (not counting the 2 Falcon Heavy launches that use pretty much the same vehicle). A 97.1 % success rate for a new rocket program is nothing to sneeze at. During the 60s and 70s NASA didn't even reach 90% overal success rate. Counting all NASA vehicles it wasn't until the 90s that they reached about 95%.
Recovery of the first stage has never been a priority for SpaceX. They've freely admitted (before launching) on the first recovery attempts that they didn't think they were going to make it for various reasons. Many design changes were made to get to where they are now and every prang was giving them valuable information. Your comment "If we let them just say "Oh, we never intended to land that time"." Is just stupid. I already told you in my first post that they have always announced intent to recover the booster BEFORE launching. No takesies backsies there.
Please stop being intentionally obstinate. There's plenty to criticize Musk (and SpaceX) for, but this isn't the problem you're looking for.
They've never taken out the drone ship. Heavily damaged, yes but never destroyed. And after a rough start (*Sarcasm* Surprisingly it's really difficult to land a 43 meter/140ft tall rocket on it's ass and keep it standing upright without it going boom. Who knew? */sarcasm*)
And they've now succeeded (when planning to recover the rocket, which they announce ahead of time) more often than they've failed. IIRC they've actually recovered the first stage booster more often than they have dropped one in the ocean INCLUDING the expendable launches now.
If you are going to have criticism on Musk, at least know what the heck you are talking about. There's plenty to criticize, but this isn't it.
"Last month it emerged that top management knew about Cambridge Analytica's shenanigans at least four months before the story hit the news. Facebook previously claimed, and testified in court, that it was completely unaware until alerted by the media."
Sounds to me like there should be some perjury trials and jail time incoming then.
Pitots are pretty much static solid state devices. It's just that there is a tube leading from the pitot tube to the pressure transducer. You don't want to put that transducer right in the airflow because of the icing and moisture problems (Temperature swings would also be very difficult to compensate for). That leaves you with a pitot probe that CAN have icing and water ingress problems. The fact they have so much problems when it is a pretty much solved problem in aviation (the problem is well understood and researched) is beyond me though. To me it indicated serious incompetence or willful ignorance. (Both unfortunately run rampant in government contracts in my limited experience)
I should not post late... HF isn't the flammable burn anything stuff, I'm confusing it with a tri-Fluoride compound. It's the "exposure to the dilute acid can poison you from the inside without you even realizing you were exposed" stuff. Alternatively the "Will straight up dissolve glass" stuff. As a gas it's even worse than as the acid.
Interesting/entertaining read on HF: "Things I won't touch"
And on the Chlorine Trifluoride I mentioned (also used in semicon fabs) "Sand won't save you this time"
The thing is that if you are already there when people show up they'll assume you only arrived 10 minutes before them at the earliest. Thus if you leave an hour before they can, they'll think you're taking the piss. On the other hand, people DO notice if they've made a long day and you are still there when they leave. They don't usually remember exactly when you came in so they just assume you're putting in some serious time. The only people that MIGHT acknowledge your early arrival are other "early birds" and most of the time they don't care either.
I thought arsenic compounds smelled like almonds?
Edit: confused it with cyanide. Arsine does indeed create a garlic or fishy smell through reacting with stuff in the according to the info I could just find. The gas itself is supposedly odourless (I pitty the guy that found that out).
Yeah, plenty of compounds that will make you shudder and back away in a hurry, but Boron isn't the main one. Hydrogen Fluoride is one of those big time "Nope" for me in particular. Concentrated HF loves to set fire to things not normally considered flammable. Things like sand, concrete and, in the words of John D. Clark, rocket propellant researchers. For me though especially the health effects of exposure to the dilute stuff makes me nope out. You'd better hope the hospital has plenty of calcium gluconate on standby if you ever get exposed, because HF pulls the calcium from the blood to the point of the muscles like the heart or for breathing stop working. Definitely a shit way to go.
The thing is that nobody who's capable of doing any other job stays around doing cleaning work just for the fun of it. That leaves only the people who can't get a "better" job doing it. And those are often not the people generally associated with high intelligence (no offence intended to cleaners, they do an important and sometimes literally shit job). This is compounded by pretty much every company nowadays nickel-and-dime the job by outsourcing to the lowest bidder contractor. That means these people get literally 10 seconds per desk and one minute to vacuum an entire office. I'll leave it to the reader to decide how effective a job a cleaner can do in that time. On top of that because it is outsourced work often done outside work hours there is little to no oversight or management involved in their performance other than the amount of complaints coming in to the contractor and the amount of time they bill.
Turning up late usually also means leaving later, meaning you are still around when the fixing finally comes in (or at least you are still around when others have left, leaving you to make a good impression for "staying late to help solve the problem"). It can have it's advantages.
The heavier rockets that the article mentions for Stratolaunch have actually been canceled. They're focussing solely on Pegasus XL currently, which can also be launched by other aircraft (There's a Tristar already doing so I believe). Their argument is that they can carry 3 at a time to reduce cost, but given the cost per pegasus rocket this is a stupid preposition as it's a literal drop in the ocean in terms of cost. Stratolaunch will collapse soon. There is no market for what they plan to do as other small launch providers can do the same for similar or lower cost without all the headaches of horizontal transport, flight and launch introduced by air launched rockets.
Find furniture that fits in your overal budget and spread booking the payment over more than 1 month? Or buy a few tables and chair each month? This is mostly a problem that calls for creative bookkeeping to fit whatever arbitrary rules the organisation has put in place.
Yes: "any other kind of sex besides that between a husband and wife" => Prostitutes have sex outside of a marriage so are immoral and should be prosecuted. Anyone that has sex with a prostitute does so outside of marriage so is immoral and should be prosecuted.
These people want sex to be strictly the wife laying down on the bed waiting for her husband to get it over with, the husband to "pump in his load" to get his wife pregnant then rolling over and falling asleep. No petting or touching allowed.
Doesn't GDPR specifically ban handing over any PII to private 3rd parties (Companies or persons) without consent? IE, handing over Whois data to "security researchers" (What does that entail anyway, how does one get the badge? I've used basic google search terms to find open IP cams. Am I now a security researcher?) or to "IP lawyers" (Again, what does this entail? How do they check someone is a both a licensed lawyer and specialized in IP cases AND working on a case that involves those specific records?) would be illegal under GDPR afaik, no matter the processes they spin up for it. The ONLY way it can be legal is handing over the data to law enforcement ONLY with the correct court orders to demand that information. All the others will first have to prove to a court they have a legitimate case and then try to convince the court to provide the correct request for Whois data.
Please don't tar all people with the same brush. Yes there are some complete nutjobs out there. That's not all of them. As usual it becomes hard to find the real (and reasonable) issues because a few blowhards are demanding all the attention and all the opponents aim all their attention to these same ridiculously overblown idiotic demands instead of the more reasonable center.
In theory yes, in practice a lot of those "rights" aren't actually written down anywhere and more or less socially decided. Since there are always people that like being contrary and believe their ideas are "the one true Truth of all Truths" this can get complicated. Simple things like what bathroom they're allowed to use are a hornets nest of opinion. It usually devolves into the argument between: "You should keep your filthy mouth shut and just allow these people to do as they want" and "They're all perverts and what is to prevent them from assaulting a woman in the bathroom just because they put on a dress?". An argument that can't have winners and knows only losers. Not in the first place the people whom it actually concerns that for the most part just want to be left alone and get on with their lives.
But when is something encrypted? That is the whole gist of the discussion here. Is data compressed by some obscure algorithm encrypted or just compressed? The compression is there to reduce transmission time and improve reliability over difficult radio links, but if an outside observer cannot decompress the data stream, is it then the same as encryption?