Marthinwurer

Hazard Lee on YouTube has a great video going into the new system they have for fighter pilots to pee in their planes.

With solid motors lower in the atmosphere with high velocity it's often optimal to delay second stage ignition so that your sustainer motor isn't working against as much atmosphere. So, kinda Max-Q issues, but for performance reasons.

I love these kind of inadvertent measurements. One of my favorite examples is that a sufficiently accurate IMU can get you relatively accurate longitude measurements from the Coriolis effect.

This is basically how Digital ReadOuts (DROs) work on manual milling machines, and I'd assume they use the same thing on CNC machines as well.

Dereferencing just gets whatever the value is of that data type that is at the memory location in the pointer. That memory location is all the data that is in that pointer, all other data on how to use it is in the compiled-in type. the length isn't stored unless you manually store it.

Thanks for the recommendation, I like how they're adapting the pivoting head from the cartridge razors to the ecosystem of the safety razor. I've been using the Henson Razor, which tackles the safety razor skill issue by fixing the angle of the blade when it cuts. I've been pretty happy with it, but now you're making me want to try the one you've shared.

After I decided to start shaving, I tried a few different razors. The benefit of the cartridge razor is that it requires less skill than the safety razor. The pivoting head puts it at the right angle every time. The downside, however, is the increased cost and packaging. There's also the problem that all the razor cartridges are proprietary and you need a new handle for each different blade set. I didn't like that,so I tried using the older safety razor that I had been using for trimming my neck when I had a beard. I ended up cutting myself a lot, especially around the chin. If that was what safety was, I'd shudder to see what I'd look like with a straight razor! I was still looking for something better, so after I had been brainwashed by YouTube sponsor segments for a few months, I finally caved and bought the Henson Razor in the hope its capabilities matched the advertisement. It's a finely machined safety razor, but the craftsmanship and tolerances aren't what separates it from the regular ones: it's the fact that they've designed it in a way that removes the skill requirements. The cutting angle is built in so you don't have to precisely control the pressure and angle of your cutting strokes. I was half expecting it to be a gimmick but I ended up falling in love with the design. I ended up buying a big sampler of razor blades and I've been enjoying trying all of them. Anyways, actually improving products are out there, you just have to look.

I've mostly used it for testing and scripting CLIs. Are there any better ways to do that?

I'd also recommend Experimental Fat Loss, although some of his stuff can be a bit ranty. He's got good data and experiments, though, which is why I recommend him. Notably, he cured his non-24 with his diet. https://www.exfatloss.com/p/losing-43lbs-in-144-days-on-ex15...

Thank you for that explanation, I was confused as to what was happening with the multiple decoders. That's a wild way to implement a processor front end.

I compare my use of FreeCAD to Stockholm Syndrome. The UI is clunky, fillets and chamfers are inconsistent at best, and sometimes things just break. Larger models are difficult at best. However, it has been getting better. Toponaming is finally being fixed, and the UI is getting cleaned up. If you're using CAD professionally, I wouldn't recommend it. Honestly, I wouldn't really recommend it unless you're willing to learn a lot and figure out how to deal with all the ideosyncracies. But still, deep down in my heart, I love it.

There are several projects that implement the MTG engine and are in active use. Forge and Xmage are the main ones. You could ask their developers how they avoid getting C&D'ed. It's definitely doable and your work doesn't have to be in vain.

You might also enjoy watching "How to Make Everything" and "Blondiehacks"

Edit: Clickspring is fantastic too, his Antikythera mechanism project is just phenomenal.

Alternatively, you should avoid it like you would crack cocaine or heroin, because it's that addicting.

There's very few emergencies that the lock would kill them in if used properly. Since it would only be locked once the shuttle got to space and once it would open to hard vacuum. It would be unlocked before reentry. The only other failure modes that I could think of would be if the lock was unable to be opened or the key was lost. Neither would be the end of the world, as they would have had tools available to cut or remove the lock.

Given that, I'd push for the lock to be part of standard procedure. It can't be a point of distress if it's standard procedure instead of a judgement call by the captain.

Outer Wilds is by far the best game I've ever played. It's wonderfully melancholy in so many ways, especially in how you can only really play it once. If you're the kind of person who reads HN, you're the kind of person who'd enjoy playing it. If you can't bring yourself to play videogames, or if you've already played through it and want to relive the game vicariously through others, then you might enjoy watching a let's play of it. I highly recommend LilIndigestion's playthrough. But, if you have the ability to play it, go in without any knowledge or spoilers, and experience the joy of discovery.

There's a setting somewhere to auto download cards when they're seen. That should get you up and running quicker!

A discord server that I'm in used this when the admin decided to retire and wanted to leave the server in good hands. It worked fantastically, and the server is still going strong to this day.

Zack Freedman is pretty good.

How to Make Everything is bootstrapping civilization from the stone age, so that's pretty neat.

Anything technical about the actual system is probably classified because it's active military hardware, but some possible avenues of reading would be the F-35 sensor fusion paper, as well as some radar textbooks like Stimson or Skolnik.

The difference is less the CIWS and more the amount of displacement that they have to spend on capabilities and the generality of those capabilities.

Even LCSs, effectively overpowered corvettes, have CIWS. They don't have the radar which can deal with threats further out than the 10 miles or so that their SeaRAM can deal with.

Frigates have more room to fit larger radars, power plants to feed them, and missiles to fire with them. Smaller frigates usually have 8-16 VLS tubes with ESSM or SM-2 to deal with threats 30+ miles out. Bigger ones, like the planned Constellation class, will have 32.

Destroyers are where you get enough room to start having strike and long range defense capabilities. The radar is now powerful enough to track ballistic missiles coming in from space, and they have missiles that can intercept them like SM-3. They also have extra VLS to store strike capabilities, like Tomahawk missiles. US Arleigh Burke class Destroyers have 96 VLS cells.

Cruisers have an interesting role. In the US navy, we don't really need them. We have a slightly larger destroyer hull with extra room for a fleet command center that we call cruisers to make congress happy. In navies that don't have carriers, though, their role is to be the main strike platform for the fleet. They'll have mounts for the largest mobile missiles in their arsenal, like the Russian P-700 Granit, which NATO called "Shipwreck".

Carriers are the most important part of the US Navy. Their power projection and sea control capabilities are unmatched. Each one carries their own airborne radar squadron, as well as 44+ strike fighters to not only defend it but to strike back at their foes. The carrier allows the fleet to know everything that happens within 500 miles, and destroy anything that it doesn't want there.

So, why don't we want to just have lots of cruisers? A mix of survivability and flexibility. While offensive capability scales linearly with tonnage, survivability falls to the cube-square law and only increases as the cube root of tonnage. Carriers are a special exception to this, because their aircraft are such a force multiplier. However, they're extremely expensive so very few countries can afford more than one or two. The US, however, is required by congress to have at least 10. For flexibility, it's often nice to have more platforms with less capabilites in more places than one platform with more capabilities in one place.

Modern warships are far, far better than the ones that we used in the 50s. We have more powerful engines, more redundancy, and better damage control systems. The sensors that we have on the ships are much better, and they are used to control more advanced, accurate, and powerful missiles. The crews are better trained, because they're a fully volunteer force, and more lessons have been learned over the years.

The carrier is not obsolete. They are surrounded by a battle group of the best of these modern ships, in open ocean with mobility unrestrained by the rules of engagement of a pre-planned exercise. On their decks, they carry 50+ aircraft that can investigate anywhere within 500nmi, ensuring that nothing moves on the surface that they don't know about. When a plane lands, it can be turned around for another sortie in an hour with a fresh pilot and more missiles. Each of these missiles have a range of their own of 100nmi+, and can be carried more than 500nmi by the aircraft carrying them. An aircraft carrier at full power can even outrun some smaller surface ships.