If you differentiate once again by time, you'll find a physical phenomenon called "acceleration".

Einstein taught us that it can be experienced completely independently of any fixed speed limit.

I said carbon neutral synthetic gasoline. That's the whole point of the OP's theory that ICE engines are hunky dory.

From an emissions standpoint, South Africa's coal-derived fuel is even worse than just using oil.

I guess I would be more excited if I hadn't abandoned Windows on my own personal devices (still have to use it via RDP at work). I think the Wine project has done an incredible thing, I just don't have any particular use for it anymore.

Right. People in this country threaten to riot if gas prices go above $4/gal.

Synthetic gas that is genuinely carbon neutral (not just greenwashing like ethanol) will never be less than $20/gal.

In theory, that would work if people were willing to pay more and get more efficient vehicles. In reality, in this country, no fucking way.

That's my point. The common ground we have between the myriad different cultures and languages on this planet is the objective reality that we all share whether we like it or not. Hence, if you are going to come up with a common map projection then we have to base that decision on objective reality and logical reason because if we start trying to decide based on subjective and irrational cultural "feelings" then we are never, ever going to agree.

Only an uneducated fool would base their opinion on how important a country or continent is based on its size on a map projection. While I agree there are probably such fools out there the solution to this problem is better education, not trying a different map projection.

Yes it does but the quote from the article is "The current size of the map of Africa is wrong," which is objectively and factually wrong: the size of Africa is basically correct, it is the other continents away from the equator that are wrong.

Almost as bad as a non-existent succession plan is a succession plan even the successor knows nothing about. If Linus has a successor, that successor should be well aware, and already be a contributor to that succession plan. This isn't a will where you're pleasantly surprised your rich great-uncle left you his house on the French Riviera, this is a major project that is an integral component of thousands of technologies and workflows.

Neutrinos are called ghost particles because of how little they interact with other matter. They're constantly streaming through your body without interacting with you. A solar neutrino passing through the entire Earth has less than 1 in a million odds of interacting with the Earth.

Not like this with this - the energy here equates to a couple hundredths of a joule. Now, the "Oh My God! Particle" had a much higher energy, about three orders of magnitude higher. That's knock-photos-over sort of energy (and a lot more than that). The problem is that you can't deposit it all at once. A ton of energy does get transferred during the first collision, but it's ejecting whatever it hit out of whatever it was in as a shower of relativistic particles that - like the original particle - tend to travel a long distance between interactions. Whatever particle was hit is not pulling the whole target with it, it's just buggering off as a ghostly energy spray. There will be some limited chains of secondary interactions transferring more kinetic energy, but not "knock pictures over" levels of energy transferred.

Also, here on the surface you're very unlikely to get the original collision; collisions with the atmosphere can spread the resultant spray of particles out across multiple square kilometers before any of them reaches the surface.

It was a neutrino. Those are often called "ghost particles" in popular sciencey articles.

While this is an energy record for neutrinos, the overall record cosmic ray (probably a proton) had over 1000X more energy.

Yes it is different to the old cable bundles because with the old channels you could only watch what they were showing. Hence, to be sure that you had something to watch you needed to subscribe to multiple channels and they gradually showed you what you wanted spread over months or years.

Streaming services are different because once you subscribe you have access to everything they have. We generatlly subscribe to 1-2 services watch everything we want over a period of several months to a year and then switch to a different service and get a whole new library to watch. By the time we have cycled back to the original streaming service a couple of years have passed and they have new content and it has been a while since we watched the old too. You can't do that with cable channels because you do not control what they show.

Absolutely true but the truly stupid thing here is that, because Africa is on the equator, it's one of the continents that is least distorted by the mercator projection. Not only that but the default is to centre of the Greenwich meridian which puts Africa at the centre of the map. I'm finding it really hard to understand why using a map projection which distorts Africa the least and centres the entire map on it can be interpreted as "marginalising" Africa and making them feel less valued, indeed if anything it makes it look like the map makers cared more about Africa than anywhere else.

Actually I was thinking more of the Black Mirror epsiode where a medical AI implant replaces some critical brain functions after an accident and the poor woman starts speaking ads. It also shows the problem with adding ads to ChatGPT - how will anyone know whether the output was a true response from the AI or sponsored content from an advertizer?

For things like that I completely agree. Similarly the new bamboo spoons and forks are just as good as the plastic ones they replaced, if not better and stronger. However, try using a wooden knife or a paper straw and you'll see that there are limits. What I'd like to see is a more sensible approach where we replace the obvious things with non-plastic alternatives and work on finding solutions for the rest. However, in today's world it seems that either you have to support replacing everything immediately or nothing at all - the art of compromise seems to be lost.

While you can interpret the headline as saying that a new type of supernova has been detected as a black hole - since a black hole is a supernova remnant - this would be the pre-cursor supernova to the one actually observed and would have be a "regular" supernova, not a new type. However, since this supernova remnant (the Black Hole) did cause a star to explode this interpretation is still close to correct.

The other possible, and correct, interpretation is that a new type of supernova has been detected by the observation of a black hole causing a star to explode. There is no interpretation that is consistent with the act of detecting causing the explosion so no quantum interpretation is needed and even the alternative interpretation is technically not far from correct.