HN user
The opposite of "real-time" in this context would be "sampling". It means that the capture represents the high-resolution time history of one particular event (one explosion) instead of fast and successively offset captures from as many events.
Once someone else receives, decrypts, and reads the message, the nexus of control in the iMessage system is really lost. "Disappearance" at the appointed time would probably be by far the lowest assurance property that the system would have, and Apple may simply not want to present properties that unreliable as an attribute of the system.
Why?
It’s EIRP, not actual radiated power. If the beam is narrow this is achievable with moderate total power. The DSN transmitter in Canberra is capable of this EIRP on about 100 kW total power.
In the context of this paper, the DSs are significantly smaller than galaxies, but JWST doesn't have enough resolution to distinguish a galaxy from the much smaller DS.
In their DS model, what seems to limit the rate at which the DM annihilates is that any interaction between DS particles has a low probability of happening (a cross section). We can imagine this as particles just whizzing around each other, gravitationally bound (i.e. confined to a nearby volume) but so small that they have a low probability of actually interacting.
They tap communications cables, among other things.
Employment, outside a handful of environments where salaries are public, is probably a great example of a market that is indeed blind bid - this is what a recruiter is doing when they ask what your “salary expectations” are.
Entanglement means that there are systems with highly (more-than-classically) correlated state - that the combined state is something that can’t be represented by considering the systems independently - not that the states are the same. The no-cloning theorem prohibits a process that takes the state of a system and replicates it on another system. It’s certainly possible to have or to generate entangled sets of systems that have identical separable state, but not to copy an arbitrary state.
Responded.
As you point out, the body can tolerate significant variation in absolute pressure, corresponding to the temperature, composition, and density of the gas you breathe.
The pressure that must be narrowly controlled in a ventilator application is the relative pressure: the difference between the absolute pressure outside the lung (in the room) and the absolute pressure inside the lung. This relative pressure is what does all the work --- mechanically opening airways and alveoli --- and could cause all the injury.
Many private universities in the US, including Harvard, have a reputation that is built not only (or even primarily) on the quality of their undergraduate education but on the quality of their research output. The funding for this research, which includes compensation for professors, grad students, and operational overhead, forms a significant component of the revenue of the institution overall. It frequently dwarfs undergraduate tuition revenue and often constitutes the largest single component of institutional revenue.
A substantial portion of this funding is federal. It's in the public interest for the positive effects of being educated at a well-funded research institution to be allocated "fairly" and since that funding comes from public sources it is well within the purview of the government to regulate that allocation.
The ITU as well. Part of their proposal involves reuse of spectrum currently allocated to geostationary satellites, and the mechanism for noninterference is physical separation: while they may transmit on the same color as a GEO-sat, they won't be simultaneously visible from a normal antenna for GEO use as they will point in a different direction. The GEO-sats (and their spectrum allocation) is confined to the ecliptic, while these LEO-sats will be transmitting from any direction except overlapping the ecliptic.
The author understands the issue fine and their description is correct. MCAS is a trim-and-feel system that exists to satisfy the stick force gradient requirements of 14 CFR 25.143 [1] within a relatively normal flight envelope. A stick pusher is a stall warning/prevention device that exists to satisfy 14 CFR 25.207 and 25.103, and which doesn't activate in a normal flight envelope.
Your point that speeds are restricted to be lower at lower altitudes is really salient to the discussion because it's an intentional procedural mitigation for collision hazards in the more densely-populated and less-controlled airspace down low. Drones were but a glimmer in anyone's eye at the time the regulation was emplaced, but the same theories are still relevant.
Bear in mind though that the under-10,000 ft limit is knots of "indicated airspeed", which is a constant-dynamic-pressure pseudospeed uncorrected for density. 250 KIAS at 10,000 ft is about 290 knots/330 mph relative to the airmass, and sometimes up to 10 kt faster on a hot day.
The dynamics, which are not just the rigid body dynamics plus the aerodynamics of the vehicle but also include many structural modes of the rotorhead and blades, are not scale invariant. An RC helicopter is proportionally stiffer in certain degrees of freedom by an order of magnitude (in rotor angular velocity and thrust:weight ratio e.g.), and so can ignore dynamical factors that dominate the control and structural sizing for manned helicopters.