When the force vector is coming from the back it has the tendency to go into any direction. When there is enough grip in the front you can steer. A heavy engine in the front means even more grip.
But that's all useless on ice. Even if the car was 100% balanced.
I went to a master painter for years. And the advice that he always gave was something like: to know how it will look you have to put the paint on the canvas.
And that's it. Put paint on the canvas. Then the rest will follow.
Trump tweeted that planes have become too complicated and that the old and simple form is much better.
His tweet sounds dumb but there is some truth in it.
As you say, planes and procedures have become very complicated. And I think there are only two options: making planes simple again which make them less efficient or let computers fly the plane and make the interface simple(r).
If you look at the rockets of SpaceX then you can say they are the extreme form of fly by wire and very instable when it comes to aerodynamics. But computers can land them within centimeters when they fall out of space.
So maybe that will be the future. Planes that are very efficient instable flying 'rockets' that are controlled by computers.
"With a band gap of 4eV, glass can't absorb any photons with less energy than UVB light; namely, it is transparent to UVA, visible light, infared, etc; but the higher energy photons can and are highly likely to be absorbed."
So it seems hard to create glass that doesn't block UVB.
"the total mass of local flying insects had fallen by 80 percent in three decades"
Ok, but what if it is now back at the 'norm' and there were just too many insects all those times?
Do we know what the norm is?
I must agree that the quick loss of so many insects does not sound normal. But we also know that insects can swarm very quickly and become a pest in good conditions.
With climate change we have a lot of data from even thousands of years ago, so we have some feeling about the 'norm'.
Does a norm for the total mass of flying insects exist?
It's also important to understand that color spaces are used for medium to medium conversions.
Human perception is always a part of this but not always the goal.
For example in print a color space can be used to control how ink flows on paper. A lot of ink for dark colors on thin paper will result in a mess. That's why a color space converted image for such a print will look waay to light. But the result will be a good dark print.
And ofcourse this looks much better to the human eye.
Edit: I might be confusing the term color profile...
For small projects you might not need a lawyer or accountant.
But when you feel the balance is right you should hire people who can help you with your problems.
At the moment you might do small projects but when project get bigger and your rate higher you will see that an accountant will become affordable.
And when you do multi million projects you will be able to afford a lawyer.
But one thing that is very important even when you are still 'small': register everything! What money goes in and what goes out. What the contracts are and all your email conversations with clients.
This will help you and future accounts and lawyers.
(current) AI is not smart it's a method to have a reasonable predictable outcome from a wide range of inputs. But it is still a linear program.
Let say we program a self driving car to estimate the impact effect of a collision with an object. Then we 'learn' it that a crash with a soft object will be better for the human in the car.
So we think the car is smart because it can detect soft and hard objects. But in case of an unavoidable crash it steers into a group of people instead of a parked car...
The Pentagon (DARPA) is now investing in AI that learns from previous experiences (without feeding it a dataset over and over again). I guess other companies are working on this as well. That will create scary AI because then the program will be altered all the time making it 'smart'.
But that's all useless on ice. Even if the car was 100% balanced.