fr0sty

> Even now after the "ban" that catch is pushing up near 10,000 a year.

Not sure this is true. This site[0] puts the total 2018 catch at only 1553.

[0]https://iwc.int/total-catches

Exactly. "consumer" is the important qualifier. Yes printers are relatively cheap and reliable, but even the most consumer-centric printers are far from "plug and play" last I checked.

When there is a printer that an "average" person can take from new-in-box to reliably printing Benchys in less than 24hours then consumer 3D printing will have arrived. We aren't there now, and I'm not sure when, if ever, we will be.

ISM bands are available to use with whatever encryption scheme you wish to employ.

And as others have mentioned elsewhere: control mechanisms just need authentication, not encryption. Plenty of ways to skin that cat.

There is unlicenced spectrum where encrypted traffic is allowed (900MHz, 2.4GHz, 5.8GHz) why aren't those adequate for these experiments?

Hams care about people following FCC rules in much the same way gun owners care about ATF regulations, or car-club members care about whether modifications are steet-legal (or CA Smog-legal), or DIY forum people care about work being permitted and done to code, etc. etc.

Some of it is people being cranky, sure, but breaking the rules and regulations of a federal agency is generally not the best idea even if you don't mean any harm by it.

The relevant court decision in that link related to faulty construction resulting in water incursion over months/years. I don't see how that is at all analogous to the scenario we have been discussing (DIY smart outlet malfunctions, house burns down).

https://www.robinskaplan.com/~/media/pdfs/uncrackable%20cons...

Are you saying you know of an instance where an insurance company sued their own customer for accidentally burning down their own house? I'd like to know more about the particulars because that sounds like another urban legend.

I believe it is an urban legend that homeowner's insurance claims (specifically fire damage to structure or other contents) are being denied with any frequency because a 'homebrew' contraption was present in the home, adjacent to the start of the fire, or even the source of ignition.

Here is a link to a sample Homeowner's policy: https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/HO3_sample....

Exclusion B on page 12 is probably the relevant section. It excludes loss due to "Faulty, inadequate or defective:... workmanship, re- pair, construction, renovation, remodeling,..." but also contains an "ensuing loss" exception.

Here is an article about that: https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/ensuing-loss...

> A classic example [of an ensuing loss exception] is if faulty repair resulted in improper wiring and the improper wiring caused a fire. Almost every insurer would pay for the fire damage, but not for the repair of the improper wiring.

> you'd have to provide the whole "paper trail" for every single bit of your setup

Can you cite any firsthand account of this sort of thing happening somewhere in the US? Given the ease with which people can reach millions of people with their tale of woe/outrage the fact that such stories are not readily available on social media makes me think this is mostly urban legend.

> And probably deny your claim and coverage (and probably cancel your policy).

Can you point me to an instance of this actually happening? I see this warning given all the time but have to date never found an instance where someone's claim was denied for these sorts of reasons.

> You only need 85% to pass the real exam.

Current requirement is lower. Only 74% (26/35 or 37/50) to pass.

One other thing to know is that the exam questions are split in to sections (35 sections for Tech/General, 50 for Extra) and only one question from each section is selected. This means that you don't need to worry about getting multiple questions from sections you struggle with and dragging down your score.

Archive.org has scanned several old "callbooks" which you can try searching in: https://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22callbook%2...

I would put a vote in for http://hamstudy.org as another good resource.

In addition to having the question pools available and giving practice tests it also has user-contributed explanations of how to arrive at the correct answer for each question which I find very helpful.

Is there a reason you don't store the images of submitted games? Acquiring real-world training data to test changes with would be very useful. Perhaps make it an opt-in feature people can select when uploading a game so people are "offering" you this information to you rather than you just "taking" it.

One way to choose between two legal candidate moves would be to look forward for the next move by the candidate pieces and see which ones make sense given. If you are trying to choose between e6 and e5, for instance, look forward and see what the next e pawn move is. Plenty of other ways to go about this, of course.

The plane in question was a highly-modified P-51 taking part in the Reno air races. Looking through the report it was routinely pulling 4G in the turns already (at ground speeds of 360-380kts) so quadrupling that in the face of structural failure isn't beyond belief.

AF447 was a bad airspeed sensor and a switch of the control system from "normal law" to "alternate law" as a response to the momentary bad inputs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

No idea what they mean by "Equivalent" either, I was just doing the math with the figures quotes up-thread.

Look at the correction at the bottom of the NYT piece:

> "A news analysis article last Sunday about the impact of air travel on global warming referred imprecisely to the environmental impact of one round-trip flight from New York to Europe or to San Francisco. It has a warming effect equivalent to 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person, but does not generate that much carbon dioxide per person. (The estimate also includes warming from other greenhouses gases.)"

So actual carbon output per person was correctly calculated, but there is some "carbon equivalent" multiplier slapped on other gasses that brings their totals up from 170kg/px to 2-3T/px.

Jet fuel is 840kg/m^3 so 70,000kg is ~146m^3 which is a cube roughly 5.2m/side.

I personally would not consider that a "enormous" amount of fuel to move 400+ people 5,500km.

You are off by a few orders of magnitude. Total fuel load is 70,000kg and a 747-400 carries 416 passengers in a typical 3-class configuration[0]. That comes to only 168kg/passenger.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747

Username: snowdem0n

Very generous of you. I've loved using it to answer stackexchange answers but don't have enough use myself to justify the membership.

FWIW: "Organic" != "Pesticide Free". Rather it means that the compounds sprayed on the crops are "organic" in origin.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogs...

Point of order: Your bank told Google (and likely anyone else who is auto-billing your card) that your CC# or Expiration Date changed. Google did not solicit this information from the bank on your behalf.

Further Point of order: This is likely Visa (cc issuer) taking this action (in accordance with the terms of your agreement with them, no doubt) and not your bank.

Requiring students to submit their VCS history along with the finished project would at least up the cost to the students for copy and pasting.

They even hint at that sort of solution in the piece by mentioning cosmetic changes to the files at the last minute.

> Yup, and that's highly illegal

Which part? Powering your house w/out transfer switch (when disconnected to the utility), or actually back-feeding power to the utility? I would be surprised if the former was uniformly illegal across the US, but the latter certainly is.

Look at page 21 of that document.

"This (pollution) exclusion does not apply to bodily injury or property damage:

... (3) caused by common household chemicals used to maintain the residence premises."

Additionally, and perhaps even more importantly, this exclusion is in the "Personal Liability" section of the policy. The coverage/exclusions for the "Dwelling" are on pages 8-12.

Tesla's powerwall claims 90% round-trip efficiency (AC in vs. AC out) and most SMPS power supplies are also 90%+efficient as well so you are losing <20% capacity (not 100-200%).

And imagine if you had a house fire and had your coverage denied. Would you be at all shy of posting those details on a public forum? I'm not saying that denials like this can't/haven't happened, just that I've never seen a first-hand account of such an occurrence (it's always somebody's cousin's co-worker's son).

Keep reading the Erie policy. Look for phrases like:

"...into or upon the land, the atmosphere or any course of or body of water, whether above or below ground."

and

"but this exclusion does not apply if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is sudden and accidental."

I'm pretty confident you will find them, or something similar.

> I expect the insurance would not cover it.

I see this blanket assertion in lots of comment threads, but never with a citation.

> (just like it doesn't cover fires caused by storing gas or propane in your garage)?

This is an assertion I have never seen before. It is extremely common to keep gas cans in the garage around here (IL, USA), where else would you keep them that is safer?

> which I must be able to show to certain agencies at any time.

Which agencies and for what reason? There is no general obligation of US citizens to carry identification or even to provide your name to authorities unless you are reasonably suspected of a crime.