Be aware the performance is adversely affected; specifically, maximum speed being significantly reduced. I'd want my model to be the M2+ variant.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-pepsi-blue-paint-limited-concorde-to-mach-1-7/
666 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Feb 2012
Be aware the performance is adversely affected; specifically, maximum speed being significantly reduced. I'd want my model to be the M2+ variant.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-pepsi-blue-paint-limited-concorde-to-mach-1-7/
"Someone, somewhere will have a loggable event at 13:04:58.99999 to the limit of precision of the clock."
This is like saying "Someone, somewhere will have a loggable event on the 30th of Februrary", something which can only happen if your calendar is wrong.
The point is that the clock in the system which is logging these events SHOULD never actually read 13:04:59 dot anything, and if you have such entries in your logs, something has gone very wrong.
This is an area for which the code in the libraries needs to be correct, and people should regard writing their own time/date code with as much trepidation as they would writing their own cryptography code.
"Removing a second would mean that a log (especially transaction logs) would have multiple entries for the same second, and then some more."
I may be wrong, but I don't think it works like that (or is not supposed to).
A "negative" leap second means one particular minute has 59, instead of 60, seconds.
For example, if it happened right now (13:04 on my clock), you would get:
13:04:57
13:04:58
13:05:00
13:05:01
In theory, good systems (modern RDBMSs and OSs) should know in advance that 13:04:59 isn't happening, just like the 30th of February, and therefore not log anything.
If you DO have stuff in your logs for that time, then yes, it's a headache, and probably means everything between then and the next NTP synchronisation is suspect (probably needing decremented by 1 second).
> the problem of the fine particles of moon dust being sucked into those engines
That's not really an accurate way to think of the situation. These are rocket engines; they don't have external intakes, so nothing is getting "sucked" in. The high speed dust may very well cause damage to the hardware (some scientists have even expressed concern that the dust could achieve lunar escape velocity, and cause problems for orbiting spacecraft), but that's more of a sandblasting effect. ISTR a plan to have engines near the nose, pointing outwards/downwards for the last part of the descent (and subsequent initial ascent), which would cause cosine losses, but may be better overall for the health of the vehicle.
"But.. why would the plug move up? I haven't looked at the altitude/pressure details when the door fell out, but.. Presumably to move up, it'd have to overcome any outward presssure from the interior being higher than the exterior. So moving up would need something to overcome that force, so maybe turbulence, or the aircraft becoming inverted and gravity doing it's thing. If the bolts had been correctly installed, the uppity door would have been prevented from departing the aircraft, but it did. So how was there enough force to defeat the stop pads?"
The forces from the pressure difference are perpendicular to the force required to move the plug up; it doesn't seriously resist or assist any upwards movement (there will be friction on the stop pads, which increases as the pressure difference increases, but given they're smooth metal, it probably isn't much). The springs at the bottom however, will be (constantly) exerting an upward force on the door, which is intentionally less than the door's weight. I believe the springs are to assist workers removing and replacing the plug: it will require less effort to lift it, and when replacing it, it won't drop into place as fast (possibly avoiding damage). It probably doesn't take much turbulence to provide the necessary force to "help" the springs push it up enough.
It (sort of, without the "wedge" part) is designed that way. When pressurised, the main forces operating on the plug are the aircraft internal pressure pushing the door against the frame (specifically through structures called "stop pads", presumably because they "stop" it departing the aircraft). This stops the plug moving out but (other than from friction) does nothing to stop it moving up, so if the plug moves up to an extent that the stop pads are no longer matching up, it's on its way. This upward movement is how it would be removed during checks/maintenance and is prevented by the bolts (which in this case were missing). Others alluded to this, but the reason emergency exits (and therefore also other-things-designed-to-go-in-the-same-hole) aren't simple plugs is because the new thinking is to throw them out the aircraft by the person opening it, rather than being pulled in and placed on seats, dropped on the floor, etc., possibly causing obstruction.
None of this is a problem if you put the bolts where they're meant to go.
" triggered the pressure loss light (3 times!), but didnt lose the door in any of those occasions. Yes it finally did come out, but I still find it unbelievable that you can have a pressure loss light come on 3 times, and not pull the plane out of service for inspection. After the first time, you'd make sure that it's not a faulty sensor, after the second time, you'd make sure you can identify where the sensor is triggering. After the third time, you bloody well take the plane out of service and investigate!"
This issue seems to be unrelated to the plug loss. See http://www.b737.org.uk/pressurisation.htm AFAIU the warning light indicated the control system had a fault, and the alternate system (successfully) took over: at no time until the plug came off the aircraft, was the pressurisation incorrect (I'm speculating, but if the warning light was as a result of a leak making the pressurisation system unable to "keep up", the alternate system would have immediately failed in the same way).
We'll have a much more detailed explanation in the final report, but that's at least a few months away.
"That will just incentivise organisations to not report breaches and keep things hush hush."
Honest (although admittedly rhetorical) question: how many people need to know about a ransom payment for it to be processed successfully and covertly? Everyone involved would have to keep quiet, and more importantly, be certain everyone else who knows is keeping quiet as well. Throw in immunity for whistleblowers, and I think very few higher-ups would risk it.
This doesn't even address the fact that the data might not even be recoverable, no matter how much is paid.
"Such basic errors as using flammable tape"
Not sure I'd describe it as such, iirc, the particular tape involved has been used across the industry, without any problems previously being identified. They discovered, while testing the fire extinguishing system, that the glue could ignite if it came into direct contact with an uninsulated (e.g. damaged) electric wire.
They also booked nine (the very last?) Atlas launches, which is as mature/reliable as you can get in the world of rocketry, so that should be enough to get them started.
I'm sure that if they're stuck, SpaceX will happily step up, but Bezos would probably exhaust all viable (and several non-viable) options before that.
"The question will be if Twitter can survive this. It won't be the first or last company to be sunk by the burden of interest payments as a result of a buy-out that massively increases a company's debt."
Presumably, if it goes bust, all the assets will then need to be sold.
In that case, what is stopping a Mr. E M from buying the brand and the data (at a much reduced price)?
Large balloons/airships are surprisingly difficult to shoot down. In WW1 it was discovered that exhausting a fighter aircraft's ammunition perforating the things simply doesn't cause enough leakage to deflate them before they complete their missions and return home. It was a different story once the fighters started carrying incendiary ammunition, but remember this was still when hydrogen was used to provide lift.
In summary, it would probably be necessary to use missiles, and that starts to become difficult to justify if the missiles cost multiples of the balloons.
(Unguided rockets might be a better option, but I don't think the fighters that go to those altitudes carry them as standard.)
I want more money to go to the NHS, but this is not the kind of problem that is caused by a lack of money. I'm speculating, but think this scenario is at least plausible:
GP practice decides to use its autonomy to independently purchase an SMS management service.
The partners/admin have no idea what this should cost, or what features they actually need, or even who in this sector are vaguely competent/credible. Why would they? Practising medicine, or managing an office, don't include effectively tendering for ICT services as one of their core duties.
Then, a janky excrescence that barely compiles is purchased, and/or staff are inadequately trained in its use. Somehow, a .csv of the entire list of patients is double clicked in the file selector for the "Message Patients" menu item, instead of selecting the "Message this Patient" option.
"The effort to smuggle hardware into Iran did not involve the help of the US government nor SpaceX, he said."
SpaceX must be cooperating to some extent, if not, the dishes will be useless. Someone working at Starlink HQ will need to explicitly enable the cells (hexagonal areas of the Earth's surface) corresponding to Iranian territory, or the satellites will simply ignore dishes there.
Map of active/potential cells here: https://www.starlink.com/map
edit: amusingly, the above map implies that if you live on Rockall, you're sorted, but Knutsford and much of London are out of luck.
"These groups include the CoomingProject, Killnet, Mummy Spider, Salty Spider, Scully Spider, Smokey Spider, Wizard Spider and the Xaknet Team."
It warms my heart to imagine a senior manager in a very serious organisation drily reading that text as part of a powerpoint presentation, while any 4channers present engage in the worst struggle of their careers risking internal rupture due to laughter suppression.
At some point, there are going to be questions asked such as:
"Why, in addition to sanctions, isn't the Intel Management Engine being weaponised to harm the Russian economy?"
From my (possibly incorrect) understanding of its capabilities, it can use the network independently of the main system, so if new firmware is loaded (obfuscated windows update?), it should probably be able to geolocate, and if in Russia, subsequently brick as many pieces of connected hardware as possible, ultimately including itself.
Would Biden consider that to be going too far, or worry about people shunning western CPUs?
"their airforce doesn't seem to be up to the job of continuous, sustained attacks"
The theories I read say they can't rely on the mobile SAM launchers in the field being able to reliably distinguish between hostile/friendly aircraft, and shortages of precision munitions (quite a lot already having been spent on keeping Assad in his current position). If Putin decides he can tolerate the unintended damage associated with unguided weapons, expect that to change.
They're probably also not too happy at how many NATO surveillance aircraft are flying racetracks in Romanian airspace, the data probably going, without much detour, to Ukrainian air defence.
It is a puzzling situation, but I think one simple thing holds true: unless manufacturing capacity increases significantly, there is no solution, even if you ignore mining, there is too much "normal" demand for supply to match.
I can only assume AMD/Nvidia are contractually prevented from raising their prices to a level that forces out the scalpers (imagine how it looks to shareholders when their company is selling product at a fraction of what buyers will pay); when those contracts expire, things might change, and the profits can go into capacity expansion (and yes, dividends too) rather than to someone with an ebay account and spare room full of cards.
Even if miners were to buy all the new stock, there will be a proportion of their old cards that are too inefficient to be profitable: assuming they can be bothered trying to recover some of the purchase cost, these will end up with the second hand retailers as well.
You can look at the simulations and see what's happening: https://www.eusst.eu/newsroom/eu-sst-confirms-fragmentation-cosmos-1408/
For some fragments, what you say is true, but for some it's the equivalent of being boosted higher. Overall, it's much worse than keeping it in one big lump which is slowly deorbiting anyway.
I can't remember what altitude the Kuiper (Amazon) ones use, but Starlink (SpaceX) uses an altitude which is deep enough in the upper atmosphere that even a dud satellite will naturally deorbit within months/years. I suppose it could be a problem if a satellite had its engine "stuck" while thrusting prograde but that's probably considered considered sufficiently unlikely the authorities are OK with it. Oneweb satellites are another matter, I think one of them has failed already, at 1200km up, so it will be interesting to see how they get it down.
I talked to a submariner who said if it's diesel-electric, it's not really a problem to actually "land" on the seabed (assuming a "soft" bottom: i.e. sand not rock) but nuclear ones have coolant intakes and you want to try to avoid stuff getting sucked in (like silt or sand disturbed by the sub itself).
Or maybe that's just the information for the public, and they do it all the time, who knows?
The article indicates the problem is with Xiaomi's firmware, which would not necessarily be affected by the installation of a custom ROM. It's difficult to be sure, as the distinction between the OS and firmware is extremely blurry on modern phones.
Having said that, I have a Chinese phone running LineageOS, and it works very well for the most part (although when it finally dies, I'll probably get a PinePhone).
"Australia previously planned to build diesel-electric subs in conjunction with a French manufacturer – a contract that is about to be terminated without putting a boat in the water. Nuclear-powered boats can run submerged for longer and more quietly, and do not have to vent exhaust gases."
AFAIK, a diesel-electric submarine when it's running on battery power, is significantly quieter than a nuclear-powered one (because there are certain non-silent processes, such as cooling the reactor, that have to run constantly): am I out of date here?
"Had they paid workers correctly and paid fair share of tax, they wouldn't have money to spend on such vanity projects..."
That's quite possibly correct.
"...and at the same time governments would have funds to continue meaningful space exploration."
I would be very sceptical that the state of the USA space program would be much improved by Bezos being taxed at 100% of his wealth; the small percentage of that that made it to NASA would probably be allocated by Congress to their local interests (e.g. Boeing and the SLS).