You might enjoy the book “Blindsight” by Peter Watts.
It does a phenomenal job telling a very unique first contact story. I can’t remember if cameras are much of a plot point (I think they use them occasionally), but one of the characters is a linguist, and the aliens are distinctly non-human.
The episode is “My Screw Up” (S3E14) if anyone is wondering.
I might actually prefer “My Lunch” from S5 as an episode, but they are both fantastic.
Nonsense! Zoidberg’s a fine physician. For Aliens. Your mistake is being human!
I disagree there - peer review as a system isn’t designed to catch fraud at all, it’s designed to ensure that studies that get published meet a minimum standard for competence. Reviewers aren’t asked to look for fake data, and in most cases aren’t trained to spot it either.
Whether we need to create a new system that is designed to catch fraud prior to publication is a whole different question.
But then what’s to stop one bad owner from just making 15 different accounts for their 15 different properties?
And from the users perspective, there’s reasons to prefer that all the properties under the same owner are tied to the same account. If bad reviews are happening it’s easier to see the pattern if all the properties on the account have bad reviews.
Not that I don’t generally agree with you, I just think that it’s a complicated enough issue that just limiting the number of listings per person won’t totally solve.
The above post is referencing/quoting a line from the show “It’s always sunny in Philadelphia”, which is why people up voting it
Believe it or not, but companies outside of Boeing and Airbus are capable of designing airplanes.
It’s not just “good” regulation holding them back either - in 2017 Boeing accused Bombardier of “dumping” some CSeries planes because they sold them to Delta at below the retail cost (about a 30% discount). The CSeries was/is a good plane, but took an incredibly long time to get through certification so Bombardier had been losing money and was desperate to sell them. Boeing complained about this discount to the US International Trade Commission who imposed a massive fine on Bombardier. Because of the delays, Bombardier couldn’t afford to fight the fine so they ended up having to give up a 50% stake in the design to Airbus for only $1. The year after, the fines were appealed and overturned, but the damage was already done. Bombardier has since completely sold their stake in the CSeries (one less competitor), and Airbus gets the renamed A220 series for a massive discount.
As an aside, I can’t argue that the FAA doesn’t do more good than harm in this space generally, but I’m the last ~5 years it’s becoming clear to me that they have a massive blindspot for Boeing in particular.
Battery performance tends to drop off extremely quickly once it drops below a certain temperature. Like, one minute it still says 50% charge left, the next it’s dying.
If you aren’t used to dealing with amount of cold I could see it catching you by surprise on your commute or something.
On top of that, IIRC the student loan aid was executive action alone (i.e. Biden specifically enacted it) while the pandemic checks were passed by congress so at best Trump might be able to say he pushed for it but it was still congress that made it happen.
Why is that weirder? The people writing scientific software are, by and large, less good at writing software than people who only specialize in software development. I’d expect there to tons of terrible engineering practices in an old code base like that
I agree with many of the other commenters that OP debating their husband might not be the best idea.
But if that’s what they want, “Decoding the gurus” did at least one Rogan specific episode, and I think they do a better job covering and dismantling Rogan’s rhetorical approach than the podcasts above.
I haven’t actually read the novel version, just seen the movie enough times to know this wasn’t in it and that there was a novel
Probably the novel on which the movie was based.
Yes, I believe Trump went for an interview on Tucker’s show instead of going to the first rooinek republican primary debate. That was fairly recently
Off duty, but still fully willing to be introduced as a clinical psychologist at the start of the podcast, and to consistently refer to himself as a practicing clinical psychologist in these interviews.
He wants to have it both ways clearly
Those stats are misleading though. Autopilot only runs on highways, which are much safer per mile even for human drivers.
Tesla are basically comparing their system, which only runs in pristine, ideal conditions, against an average human that has to deal with the real world.
As far as I’m aware they haven’t released safety per mile data from the FSD cars yet, and until they do I will remain skeptical about how much safer it currently is.
Yes, but notably you can design to reduce the risk of leaking hydrogen. If the areas around the tanks are designed to allow any leakage to vent before it reaches dangerous levels, you can reduce the risk. Yes hydrogen is flammable, so tanks of it are dangerous. Jet fuel is also quite flammable, and we’ve used that for a long time.
This is all in contrast to the design of the Hindenburg, which was specifically trying to hold onto a bunch of hydrogen in the flammable regime
I’m guessing that they are (falsely) equating it to the hindenburg, when IMO it wouldn’t be much different safety-wise than current fossil fuel powered planes.
It’s not like they would be filling the wings and luggage compartment with free-floating hydrogen, it stays in it’s tank
It’s optional for beating the games story, but required if you are trying for full (112%) completion.
Good point! Obviously the solution here is to stop funding the science!
(/s)