JshWright

They why haven't they done that in any previous round of attacks? The risk of loosing credibility and giving Iran the opportunity for a propaganda win significantly outweighs any benefit to lying about this.

There is no benefit, and significant risk, in lying about that (it's an easily disproven claim if they're lying).

I don't trust them because I like them. I trust them because being truthful is in their best interest (and I trust they will always act in their own interest).

This letter is a public part of the negotiation process. It shouldn't be surprising that they are primarily using arguments that are, at least on the face, "patriotic".

The legal name of the department is still the Department of Defense. The "Department of War" is a preferred name by the administration.

They are capable of hitting aerial targets as well. They have recently been deployed by the US Navy as a cheaper way to counter cheap aerial drones launched by Iranian proxies (~$100k Hellfire vs a ~$1m SM2).

https://www.twz.com/sea/littoral-combat-ship-can-now-rapidly...

TB killed even more than those two combined and is also on the list of “things we know how to treat, but as a society have decided not to”.

The top-heavy design didn't help things either. I'll be shocked if they don't go three-for-three on landing sideways given IM3 has the same tall design.

Scott Manley posted an interesting video including some interviews and technical details on XB-1 (as well as some time in the XB-1 simulator near the end of the video).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITGgRhjcHAM

After 14 games of 4+ hours each It had gone from being a dead draw with him a big favourite in tie breaks to all over in a few seconds.

_Very_ casual chess follower here. Why was Ding a big favorite in the tie breaks? My takeaway from the match was that Ding seemed to always be worse on time, so wouldn't a shorter time control favor Gukesh?

UHG had $22B in profits last year. They did it in part by having the highest claim denial rate of any major insurer, and things like (allegedly) using an AI based claim evaluation tool with a 90% error rate. UHG also includes other "middleman" companies that are purely extractive, like Optum.

"Profiteering" doesn't seem like that tough a claim to make here...

Yeah, as a resident of NY apple country (I'm ~20 minutes from Beak & Skiff, frequently voted one of the best orchards in the country), SnapDragon is the way to go.

How do you know that this is the only spy that was caught? It seems in the west's best interest from a propaganda perspective to paint the FSB in a poor light (to discourage cooperation), and they are obviously selective about what gets disclosed.

lol, yep, that was my take on this... If you need a computer to run an ACLS algorithm, something has gone seriously wrong.

Wow, with that amount of driving you're going to be stuck with ICE cars for a while. I suspect you're a significant outlier though in terms of long trips per month.

There are a bunch of reasons why it wouldn't be worth implementing, but it would be cool if you could tell it how long you thought you would be in the store and it could adjust the charging time to be a bit gentler on the battery.

I'm sure it wouldn't get used much (unless the UI was very front and center, and maybe recommended a time based on your previous stops at that charger), and Tesla would be somewhat disincentivized to build it anyway as their goal is to get as many unique cars through the charger as possible, but it would still be neat...

We had the car in winter, perhaps didn’t help.

Yeah, especially if it wasn't the higher end model with a heat pump. Winter is definitely the biggest challenge for EV range at the moment (if you live in a place where heating is necessary for any significant part of the year a heat pump is pretty much a requirement).

Which is plenty for most folks (I originally planned on installing a Level 2 charger in my garage, but found it was completely unnecessary and just charge off a standard outlet)

240V/13A is significantly more power than the standard outlets in the US (120V/15A), but even here in the US I find a level 1 charger is more than sufficient to cover my daily driving by charging overnight.

You probably don't need fast charging for charging overnight. I charge my EV off a standard 120V/15A outlet and that's more than enough to keep the battery topped up.

A level 1 charger will add 3-4 miles of range every hour it's plugged in. Assuming you don't have some wildly long commute, that's easily enough to cover most people's daily driving in 8-10 hours of charging overnight.

NASA is just the customer. Starliner is built by Boeing.

If you're using 2.4GHz WiFi, then consider Z-Wave. It's a little pricier, but doesn't use the same chunk of RF spectrum (so won't cause interference).

Matthias Wandel has done a fair amount of practical testing on this topic

https://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/glue.html

I recently used those to repair a friends scooter (a cheap knock off of the Xiamomi M365). Water ingress through the charge port seems like a foregone conclusion and it shorted some wires running from the motor controller to the dashboard PCB, frying both. I swapped out all the JST connectors for marine grade solder sleeves. It's less "repairable" now, but hopefully a lot less likely to need repair in the first place.

They can also account for gravity by pulling up on it with a tether (in a large vacuum chamber simulating the Martian atmosphere). That's how they tested the design originally.

Ah, perfect. Thanks!

Does that second option work for anyone? I am unable to find an OPML file there

Has anyone successfully downloaded an OPML file? I've yet to find the right page/button to do that...

If it's wildly irregular to have 2 people independently doing port/starboard thrust control, the process should be like "Transfer Thrust Control", followed by a modal with a giant "BOTH SIDES" button and two tiny "Port only" "Stbd Only" buttons.

A contributing factor in the crash of Air France Flight 447 was that Airbus aircraft average the inputs of the two pilots side-stick flight controls (as oppose to Boeing, which connects the two yokes so you can't move one without moving the other). At various points leading up to the crash one pilot understood the situation and was applying the correct input to resolve the issue, but the other pilot was doing the opposite and canceled out the correct input. While there was an audible warning about the conflicting inputs, it was easily lost in the chaos of the moment.

What advantage would traditional processing have over this approach?

This whole situation can be neatly summed up as the OpenAI board saying "Hey Elon, hold my beer!"