this is an explicit design feature of federation: free association. this is one of the primary reasons it is in theory better than something centralized. this post is layers of wrong.
nothing you've said is worth responding to in a novel way, see earlier comment.
"when they're drunk at 8am", he didnt say "we"
also note the other quotes in the article that similarly single out Crow.
see certain optical illusions in a way that other vision models cannot.
eh… but not in a way that is really like what humans see. which is the articles claim, but it makes a clasically cs approach to nuerology: zero effort to prove the quite substantial claim.
Word soup
that is most certainly not word soup. it's also an accurate statement, though uncharitable to the authors claims.
Also, the detail in description of their "quantum" inspiration (an effect not unique to quantum mechanics in fact, at that level of description) reads like they skimmed wikipedia's intro to xyz topic, whether or not the author understands the topics more deeply.
this was hilarious lol
not exactly, the pressure in a cabin varies a lot and by altitude. it's not the same as the atmosphere outside the plane, put popping ears alone prove the pressure is not static at sea level.
only if you jump to using the spokes and wheel right from the start rather than starting from the hub
police are essentially unneeded in a society that treats its members with compassion. That role is better handled by social workers. Defunding the police seems like a dumb idea to people principally unconcerned with compassion, but extremely concerned with a governmental occupationary force who, in a fit of paranoia, cant imagine that maybe humans arent rabidly violent without a looming threat of violence. One might in fact imagine that police themselves are responsible in part and often in whole for the many systemic failures that appear to justify them at their incredible unrivaled level of funding to you.
Also, you described reforms that would necessarily involve defunding the police. You agree with the position but think you dont because of the soundbite.
that is called a missile, not a drone. no consumer uav are doing what you are suggesting, and different uav respond to jamming in a huge variety of ways.
like?
"you're still stuck on eroei
you need to describes the initial steps of eroei"
and dont geteme wrong, there are other things to consider than eroei, but solar is generally worth it in those contexts as well. things like mining issues, ecosystem damage, carbon costs, etc. of course those were not what were being looked at in the article, just someone's first attempt at eroei from first principles without understanding what they were critiquing.
hydrogen for ice and broadly for a power plant is unlikely to be particularly feasible for some annoying engineering problems and because we just need hydrogen for other stuff (farming mostly).
the problem in their analysis is itentirely lacks context. they never use any numbers to illustrate that this is unsustainable, just as a spooky ambiguity when convenient to the very very silly point. here is an example of the questions they should have asked themselves:
"aluminum uses several kWh per kg!", ok, how many kg of al per panel? how many kwh will a panel produce per kg of al in its lifetime? is that amount not only more, but sustainably more? (the answers generally are: a bit, a lot, yes). this is what those "critiqued" analyses are doing, and much more.
everything impacts the lifespan and thermal load will be a big one, as well as charge rate. those recommendatiuns take a very complex set of variables and simplify it into a balance of memorable and useful.
nail on the head. "the analyses are flawed and ill show you why!" doesnt do any analysis or dispute of methods. in fact going into even less detail in describing the costs of the process than essentially any analysis being vaguely critiqued. waste of time.
neither are jerks, they simply are what they are trying to survive hostile environments best they can with what they have.