tempestn

But if the filament is thicker you need much more current to get the same level of light, hence much lower efficiency, like your parent comment said.

With a lot of overlap though. The correlation with sunshine is still helpful.

I would guess the margin goes toward 0.

I agree with you, but I'm not clear how it relates to what I said. You charge the battery back up slightly by pedaling, and then it's usable again. You just need to pedal hard enough on the way home that you charge it more than it discharges. Though I don't know what the various efficiencies are.

I really like the level of detail in this article. It was enough that I felt like I could get an actual understanding of the work done, but not into such mathematical detail that it was difficult to follow.

You could lean up against something and pedal to get a bit of charge back in the battery, then you just need to pedal it home like a regular dead e-bike, no?

Agreed that it's generally intended to be condescending, but when the rest of the comment is reasonable I'll assume good faith; maybe the person has seen it used elsewhere and doesn't realize how it comes across. Or maybe they even know its condescending, but not that it undermines their other points. Either way I felt a bit of push-back couldn't hurt.

> Oh, you sweet, summer child.

Please stop saying this. It's incredibly condescending, and thereby undermines any well-supported points you're making.

I think you mean wary, not weary.

Ah, good catch. Stand corrected on that one.

TIL it's estimated that over 48 tons of meteors hit the atmosphere every day.

Regarding actual space elevators though, while they're not sci-fi to the extent of something like FTL travel - ie. they're technically not physically impossible - they're still pretty firmly in the realm of sci-fi. We don't have anything close to a cable that could sustain its own weight, let alone that of whatever is being elevated. Plus, how do you stabilize the cable and lifter in the atmosphere?

A space elevator on the moon is much more feasible: less gravity, slow rotation, no atmosphere, less dangerous debris. But it's also much less useful.

Insane to the point that it doesn't seem believable. Even if the patent was worthless it wouldn't have been worth their time to pursue that refund just for the $250.

Another comment here mentioned that patents in Canada come with strings on pricing. So it's possible there was an actual trade-off that was considered here.

I would guess not 100s. The artifacts are priceless in their original form, but most likely in order to sell them they will need to re-cut the stones and melt down the precious metals.

I'm in my 40s and don't think I've ever replaced a zipper. I'm sure a handful have broken over my lifetime, but never on something nice enough to be worth repairing. I wouldn't buy clothing based on the possibility of this (to me) extreme edge case.

If these become commonplace, so will such machines.

It's not worse; it's different, and better for some applications. Specifically when high flexibility and/or sleek appearance are valued above cost and durability. One example that immediately comes to mind is zip-up pockets in athletic wear.

Ah, yeah, you're probably right.

Love it. I think there's an off-by-one calculating the images at the top. (100-cent gives a single pixel slice of the third image.)

That's not how lawyers or bills work, unfortunately in this case, but fortunately in general.

And it actually does avoid duplicates in the short term, as long as the submitted url is identical. I'm not sure what the time threshold is exactly, but I know if you resubmit something that has been submitted in the past few days, it will count it as a vote on the original instead.

Certainly not to do your taxes, but they're useful for tax questions, as long as your verify the responses.

I'm no linguist, but I think it should work for most of these sorts of words where the noun is a compound word and the verb form is two words, which seems to be fairly common. ie. log in, back up, break down, work out.

Looks like the commonality is that the second word in the pair is often one of (in, out, up, down).

FYI in case you decide to write without the AI more, "setup" and "checkout" are nouns. If you're using them as verbs, they are two words, "set up" and "check out". You can remember which is which based on whether it would make sense to put another word between them, ie. "set it up" or "check something out", vs "the setup of the document" or "a fresh checkout of this branch".

I imagine that analogy won't go over well with some, but at the very least I think it's an insightful look at how someone who was pro-CCP might look at the contrast.

4 year old golden doodle, exactly the same thing.

In what way will the solar array destroy the land? Do you feel it's superior to destroy ecosystems with global warming, vs devoting land to clean energy? If so, why, and if not, why do you see the trade-off differently?

If Gore had won, maybe McCain could have been President after him, and the Republican party could've gone in a very different direction too.

If you enjoy these kinds of hypotheticals, check out the series For All Mankind on apple tv.

I have no idea; I'm just saying that with different people in charge, they wouldn't have reacted in exactly the same way.

If I had to guess, I'd say at least no Iraq war, if we consider that part of the response. Patriot Act probably would have looked different. I expect there still would have been military action in Afghanistan, but likely with differences as well.

Not sure why you're being down voted for an aesthetic opinion for which you gave a logical explanation. I'm not sure whether I agree or not, but the comment seemed fine to me.

I don't know if I'd call it a façade. More of a lull. I was 20 in 2001, and growing up in the 90s it very much felt like we had entered "post-history". Yes, the world wasn't perfect, there was still conflict and social problems, but they were better than at any time in the past, and clearly getting better (along with technology) all the time.

I was slightly too young to really remember the cold war, and my only hazy related memory is positive: the fall of the Berlin wall. So, major geopolitical conflict was a thing of the past.

Of course in reality, 10-15 years of relative peace (and of course there was still regional conflict) and social stability (though of course there were many unaddressed problems) is just a blip, but especially growing up in that era, it didn't feel that way at the time. I think that might be why so many millennial and Gen-x folks feel particularly disillusioned with the state of the world now.