The suggestion from this source[1] is that an autoloader makes the tank much smaller (harder to hit). He also claims being smaller makes them cheaper to produce. The intended use case was going to be somewhere in Europe, only 2-3 days from factory to front line. They were designed in an era before smart weapons. No amount of refactoring/refreshing on the current chassis is going to allow you to refactor out such a fundamental design choice.
Yes I concur.
I thought about admitting that i'm only referencing the author's blog posts was a bit "narrow", but it's also probably the best source for authoritative information on the subject. Literally "from the horses mouth".
There are the arxiv papers and some other reports (that all tend to link back to either the blog or arxiv) as well. Like you, I don't have a strong physics background, so find the published papers a challenging read.
I like Quantised Inertia[1] as an alternative to Dark Matter or MOND. The theory makes some testable predictions, matches existing data (for instance the flyby anomalies, EM drive)[2] and requires no tweaking or "fudging factors".
It's still fairly immature, so still needs work - it violates the equivalence principle and relies on Unruh radiation which hasn't conclusively been observed.
It's not just the design(s), it is the implementation too.
At Chernobyl the powers at be (accountants?) got involved and decided to use flammable bitumen coverings on the roof of reactor 3, one would assume to save money. Unsurprisingly, the roof of reactor 3 caught fire.
Just chipping in with my interesting reading about the implications of Godel's incompleteness theorems.
This piece about what the theorem means for developing "deep AI" and the human mind, was a fascinating eye opener for me, about the far stretching implications of the theorem.
Is this why I find myself awake at night reading papers about The Foundations of Mathematics, Quantised Inertia or Squeezed Light (for some random examples taken from my history). I've been writing C++ for "too long" now and subconsciously my intellect is grooming me to move into something else?
AFAIK, type 1 diabetes is thought to be an autoimmune disease, where the immune system incorrectly identifies the beta cells as an infection/foreign body and destroys them.
With that in mind, I wonder how effective this actually is. I (I'm a T1 diabetic) grow some new beta cells, my overly aggressive immune system wipes them out again..
EDIT: reading the reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/5vufpb/the_pancrea... - thanks austinjp) i'm not the only one to ask this. The general consensus is it's not going to be useful for T1 diabetics, it's just treating the symptoms, not the cause (the immune system), again (like injecting insulin).
To paraphrase you, there's always that remote chance that one of the Nigerian Princes could actually need your help.
I used to do a similar thing to you, but it's too much work now and the levels of job spam ("Oil pipeline engineer" roles, simply because my CV has the word engineer in it (prefixed with Software)... lazy recruiter, that's bad!). Basically, if they can't make the effort, why should I? I guess the answer is, "Because there's always that remote chance that one of them could be able to set me up with a "dream job""..
But we've seen "soft" AR and it appears to be fairly popular - Pokemon Go and Ingress. If you ask players of either of those games, if they would like a "harder" - i guess this means more immersive - experience while playing these games, they'll bite your hand off.
There's also father.io, which looks pretty fun, but I haven't tested that out yet.
For me, in my uneducated almost ignorant understanding of the situation, AR has a massive advantage over VR in that it tends to not make you quite as motion sick.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/86aeL6xY0PQ