I was wondering what compelled Bethesda to update the game a few weeks ago, the first time in two years. On PC, any update to the game breaks mods that rely on DLL modification, so you'd expect them to be wary of doing it for no reason. Maybe improving support for this was the impetus.
The total attention given to this is a little bit goofy given the small sums involved. According to Autistici Invenati's costs page[1], the total they spend every year is €20,300. It's strange to see it trumped up as anything like a major entity.
I often get sore eyes when I'm sick. Perhaps you have some mild infection? It would certainly explain the fatigue. It could be an odd one, like one of the herpesviruses. An alternative possibility is mold exposure.
Task glasses might give temporary relief of the discomfort. They're just regular prescription glasses that put optical infinity at screen distance. This allows the ciliary muscle to remain fully relaxed.
Consider getting an opthalmologist to look at them, just in case.
I do suspect a virus triggering dry eye, especially in those having low vitamin D. The body may even develop antibodies for the virus, bringing it under control, but the dry eye then persists. I feel this is not studied. EBV and CMV are on the top of my suspicion list.
One should probably get tested for them, also for the herpes viruses. Some doctors are idiots and don't test for the correct types of antibodies, so doing it oneself after some research is probably more reliable.
>3.7 Heavier than air: The UAS must be a heavier-than-air aircraft. The use of any lighter-than-air gases to provide buoyant lift is strictly prohibited. Teams may use chemically inert gases for subsystem actuation, safety inerting, and component rigidity, provided that there is no buoyant advantage and the gas is contained in components operating at pressures indicative of mechanical function.
Someone did fly a sort of balloonocopter, a quad copter that used inflated balloons as the cross arms, My disappointment is immeasurable that they were not allowed to use a lifting gas in it. I mean, it flew poorly anyway, but seeing as it is an unmanned vehicle, I would have used hydrogen as my lifting gas, and then when it had a catastrophic failure it would get a viking funeral for free.
As it is, there were some impressive metal fires during crashes, another win for lithium batteries.
I'm currently reading Diamond Dogs, Turquoise Days by Alastair Reynolds. In the second book, there's a water-world where there are airships, and a whole city held aloft in the air by "vacuum bladders".
I'll admit when I first read that detail in a description of the blimp-like airship the 2 characters are riding right at the beginning of the book, it took me a second to realize exactly what it meant. My understanding of airships like blimps and such hinges on something being in the gas bladder... But yes, nothing is certainly lighter than something! I haven't yet encountered any technical description of how the bladders are constructed, which I look forward to reading.
You need to construct a sphere that is strong enough withstand 1 atmosphere of pressure but also lighter than the weight of the air being displaced.
In a sci-fi book you would construct your unobtanium shell in space and use them to splash down heavier payload to earth. But the material needed is probably still magic.
I think Reynolds also had smelting in space, where molten metal would be turned into a huge volume of froth using some lighter than air gas. The 'burgs' of metal foam could then gently float down to earth.
My impression is that it's at least partially down to how brittle a fully automated system could be. You want as much of a "manual" backup as possible, and that only be achieved by doing things manually all the time to keep up practice. With the current system, even with enormous degradation (massive power outages, cyberattack, software flaw, etc.) it's possible to get planes out of the sky without much risk. If a fully automated system fails, it's an enormous disaster.
The other problem is that the "worse is better" arrangement where ~everything is done via voice over radio makes automation difficult. Voice is simple, universal, and enormously flexible, but hard for computers to handle systematically. Some two-way protocol and associated pilot UI would be useful... but then you have to decide on that protocol and UI, every manufacturer has to implement it, every airline has to buy it, and every pilot has to be trained. Unless it's very, very clear what the optimal solution is and that the benefit outweighs the cost, that sort of coordination is difficult.
(And remember, the ultimate result of such a change would be a rigid system that is difficult to change, more fragile, and does not save much money relative to the total cost of the airline industry.)
I don't think consolidation is the issue here, so anti-trust doesn't make a lot of sense. There are at least five major US companies strongly competing with each other. The issue is that total investment has gone far beyond expected revenue because no one is far ahead, everyone is bidding against each other for chips/power, and competition is driving down token price. Ironically, consolidation would fix this because a single winner would be able to charge monopoly prices. Anti-anti-trust. :-)
This is a bit of a "broken clock is right eventually" sort of thing, though. I could say without any evidentiary basis "there will be a financial crisis" for years and eventually be right, but I don't think it would be fair to say that I predicted it in a meaningful way. The details matter.
I don‘t think so. These predictions were explicit, and were tailored around the economic situations at the time. As you sibling mentions, even some capitalists made the same predictions (or they believed the left-wing economists) and were able to profit off of this.
No, the two interventions are unrelated. Every indication is that they thought Iran would be a quick war with minimal impact on oil markets. Even if they did think the Strait of Hormuz would be closed for a long time, controlling Venezuela's oil does not help — it takes much longer than two months for Venezuela to meaningfully increase oil production. (And oil is ~fungible, so it doesn't really matter if the US is involved with production and sale. All that matters is that it's produced and sold by anyone.)
No, the attack on Iran was simply instigated by Israel, which has been trying to push the US in a war with Iran since at least 20 years.
Trump has a long history of doing what Israel wants- it's him who moved the US embassy to Jerusalem (which was illegally annexed by Israel), tore up the nuclear agreement with Iran, sanctioned the ICC, sponsored accords to get Arab states to accept the occupation of Palestine, and just the other day offered Saudi Arabia a civilian nuclear program if they do just this one favour to Israel (again the Abraham accords). His son in law Kushner is a personal friend of Netanyahu, like his father (who was nominated ambassador to France). Basically Trump has always been Netanyahu's tool.
Stop taking away responsibility for US actions. As you say Israel has asked US for a war with Iran everyday for 20 years and US has said no everytime. Now they said yes. So clearly US was able to say no and the choice to say yes was theirs.
Of course the US are entirely responsible for their actions. They're doubly responsible because not only they engaged in a reckless and illegal war, but also because they did it out of subservience to another country. The US politicians who promptly pledge their loyalty to Israel every time they're asked to (i.e. almost all of them), they are fully responsible.
I disagree with the current Iran action, however we can't just say that Iran has been forthcoming and compliant with their agreements.
>During the 1990s and early 2000s, Iran developed several undeclared sites, which were identified by international observers in 2002 and 2009. Following the collapse of negotiations with the EU-3 in 2005, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors found Iran in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement,[6][7][8] leading the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to pass a series of resolutions between 2006 and 2010 demanding a suspension of Iran's enrichment-related activities and targeting Iran’s banking, trade, and energy sectors.
>In late 2003, Iran was facing the prospect of censure and agreed to a degree of cooperation. In October 2003, Iran and the foreign ministers of Britain, France, and Germany (the "EU-3") struck the Tehran Agreement: Iran pledged to temporarily suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, allow more intrusive inspections by signing the Additional Protocol, and clarify past nuclear work. This deal, reached just ahead of an IAEA Board of Governors deadline, was intended to build confidence while a longer-term solution was negotiated. However, Iran's cooperation was halting and incomplete.[22]
>In 2004 and 2005, the IAEA uncovered inconsistencies and omissions in Iran's disclosures, such as experiments with plutonium separation and advanced P-2 centrifuge designs that Iran had failed to report. Iran's suspension of enrichment proved short-lived as soon it resumed certain nuclear activities. In June 2004, the IAEA's Board rebuked Iran for not fully cooperating. By September 2005, the Board found Iran in non-compliance with its safeguards (a formal trigger for UN Security Council involvement). Iran reacted by ceasing voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and restarting enrichment work. In April 2006, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had enriched uranium to 3.5% U-235, low enriched uranium suitable for nuclear fuel, using a cascade of 164 centrifuges at Natanz. This marked Iran's first public entry into the nuclear fuel-cycle capability club.[22]
Tell the story of what’s happened in the last 15 years, not just the 2000s under Bush 2.
In 2015, the JCPOA was signed to address some of these shortcomings. It especially enhanced verification and started discussions between Iran and the rest of the world. But rather than build on it, the 45th administration decided to cut it up without alternatives in place.
India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan are all non-parties to the non-proliferation treaty. Iran is a party.
North Korea was a party, gave notice to withdraw, said they were still in then said they were out. The way that Iran is acting parallels the behavior of North Korea.
