Is this because of something analogous to an expected value calculation? Like the increased probability of failure of a single engine when carrying 4, combined with the lower excess power per engine, means that the safety margin of a 4 engine plane is worse? Or is it something to do with the doubling of the number of critical parts that could fail? I'm struggling to come up with a workable argument why 2 is safer, it seems counterintuitive. I don't have enough of the puzzle.
EDIT: Never mind, I see you wrote more down below about this. It's increased risk of a catastrophic engine failure bringing down the entire plane, not an engine simply dying and forcing a landing. Four engines = twice as many chances for that to happen.
This is a normal thing to do in brittle materials; it’s a technique I’ve employed a few times to stop cracks propagating in fiberglass on boats. Super cool to see it being done in space. My drill is even the same color. Always knew I was astronaut material.
This water usage argument against data centers is so specious I almost think it's spread as a deliberate talking point by DC proponents.
Power consumption and effect on electricity infrastructure is so, so, so much more consequential and dangerous. It alone is way more than enough on which to base a very solid anti-DC campaign. The water argument weakens the whole anti-DC position by being so refutable.
EDIT: with probable exceptions in specific local instances where water supply is already very constrained, like Utah.
That'd be a terrifying setup for me as a live player! I'm curious where you found low latency wireless headphones though.
Have a look at Loopback - very mature app now. I use this for doing live and studio routing, you set a live profile so that only your soft synths actually get an output and Music (and FaceTime, system, whatever) get sent to the musical equivalent of /dev/null. So an accidental press of "Play" has no effect (beyond perhaps catastrophic stuttering as Music.app opens.)
My laptop is disconnected at the moment so it's full of "missing device" notifications but this screenshot[1] will give you an idea. Profiles on the left, apps in the next column, routing to mixer channels (I have a multichannel interface) next and then "monitor devices" which can be multiplexed.
It's a bigger issue than one of legality. The high seat in a standard truck cab offsets two of the biggest challenges with driving a truck: it takes ages to get up to speed, and a very long distance to stop. High visibility gives better sight lines for further so the driver can plan. That helps to improve fuel efficiency by better anticipating traffic and planning acceleration accordingly. It's absolutely vital for safety because the driver needs to brake for what's happening a huge distance up the road. If you don't have that line of sight, they'd have to drive so defensively ("stop in the distance you can see to be clear") that any efficiency gains from the aero would be completely swallowed by all the accelerating and braking.
A sports car of course can stop in a heartbeat and the excess power means it can easily manage its flow in traffic. They'd perhaps not even be legal if they took as much road to stop as a loaded truck. It's four times the distance - 150ft for a decent sports car at 70mph; 600+ for a semi.
Since 2020 Fender has been owned by Servco Pacific, a Hawaiian car dealer that has some musical instrument holdings as well (Roland). It has a private equity arm attached from which presumably this idea came.
I wonder if someone up high in Honolulu has decided it's time to start the value extraction phase or prepare for a sale. It doesn't make much sense otherwise: this is a very brand destructive move in a market that's moved entirely by emotion. For sure they know this. Doing it secures their ownership over a bigger piece of IP than they previously had a fair claim to - not just the Stratocaster name, but the shape too. That might the brand more valuable in a sale.
I don't know anything about them but it's a cool effect. At least on this strawberry, you're not zooming in but rather traveling closer. I don't see the increasing (made up) detail you'd expect from a zoom, we sort of pop through the skin into an invented interior.
Alright, it's worth a try. I'll do it at night in a balaclava though, because I live in the USA and no matter whether it's local, state, or federal government they'd rather spend $100k prosecuting this than $1k fixing the hole.
It isn't beautiful at all, nauseating uncanny valley stuff in my opinion, but AI images do have a style (or rather one of a number of idiosyncratic styles.) The sort of glossiness and unsettling focus in photorealistic images; the terrifying dreamlike surreality of more impressionist graphics; even the cartoony style used in corporate infographics. They're all quite distinctive to me at least and certainly aren't anything a human would produce. You can see the "influences" (i.e. stolen training data) but it really has come up with something itself.
Not that I think it should have. Kill it with fire and EMPs.
Isn't .22 a bit small for deer? I don't know anything though, so this isn't an informed objection just a question. Or were you just learning fundamentals of shooting before trying a bigger caliber?
- This seems like a clever way of getting talent involved during a budget squeeze, presumably with the hope that some of those they attract will still be around after this congress and the agency can stabilize once again. I guess it's also a neat kind of try-before-you-buy for both sides. NASA is prestigious and one of the very few places one could do purely science-focused aerospace engineering, but it's still a government job under all the gold leaf and atomic robots.
EDIT: Good Lord, I get the cynicism but at least someone at NASA HR is trying new things to keep the lights on.