It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!).

Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

It's not just the US, it's pretty much the entire West since it all adopted the same crazy policies and put idiots and psychos in positions of power because they believed America would always protect them no matter how insane they became.
If anything, the US will struggle along trying to fix itself while Europe and the rest collapse.The US has the resources to become self-sufficient, particularly if Trump takes Canada and Greenland. Europe can't. New Zealand can't. Australia maybe could but lacks the high-tech production of chips and other essentials for modern manufacturing and is a glaring target for Chinese occupation if the US Navy isn't there to protect it; it's a huge pile of resources with a small population and very small military.
We live in a world which has ignored political reality for nearly a hundred years and it's coming back with a bang. Hopefully not a nuclear one.

I was working on a twenty-year-old Java project which had very few unit tests last year. In a couple of days with Copilot I added tests for a couple of hundred classes; for the simple ones it generated the entire test and I just needed to run it, for more complex classes it needed more help since it didn't understand things like not trying to mock final classes. The tests also found a handful of bugs that had been in the code for years so I fixed them.

Last week I had to write a test for old C++ code which maps between internal and external error codes because the test didn't exist and we were changing the mappings so I didn't want to break any mappings which weren't supposed to change. So I was able to cut the switch statement from the mapping code and past into the test then have Copilot convert the switch into a map of inputs to outputs so I could test every possible mapping by looking up the result in the map or checking for the default code otherwise (it also wrote most of that part but didn't get it all correct).

There's a modest amount of Copilot code in the actual released software but Copilot does tend to screw up by calling methods which don't exist and things like that which have to be fixed. So it rarely produces a perfect result. I suspect it would work better if it was a project which had been developed using Copilot as maybe then it would have created those methods that it later expects to call.

Another thing it's good at is taking Java code and converting it from looping through a collection into using a stream instead. I swap languages all the time and can never remember all the different stream methods in Java so I just write it as a loop and then tell Copilot to turn it into a stream.

Mostly it's taken out a lot of the work that junior developers might have done in the past. So we're allowing senior devs to do more work in the same time but eliminating the jobs for people who would progress to being senior devs in the future.

I'm getting $389.99 w/free shipping though. Might be your location?

You're right that "easy to handle" is actually a pretty big concern for rockets, which is why we're moving away from hydrogen and more towards methane.
Methane doesn't require anywhere near as cold of a temperature as hydrogen, meaning that a lot of concerns about things like freezing the oxygen goes away, such that while theoretically a hydrogen engine would have more energy and thus thrust by mass, in practical terms, methane often beats it because the rocket itself can be simpler and lighter.
As far as N6 goes, the trick with this would be that it is a "monopropellant", IE you only need to pump one tank to a thruster to fire it. With hydrogen, methane, or kerosene, you need to pump an oxidizer there as well. So the engine can be drastically simplified because you only need one intake.
However, with energy density there's the critical difference between a monopropellant (a TNT powered rocket engine would technically be a monopropellant, because it carries its own oxidizer), and rocket fuels like methane and kerosene, in that for a rocket, you need to add the mass of the oxygen back in. For RP-1, for example, that's around 2.2 (they usually run a bit fuel rich over stochiometric* because it improves thrust). Yes, it turns out that most rockets carry more LOX by mass than fuel.

For those interested, actual figures:
TNT: 4 MJ/kg
N6: ~8 MJ/kg per the article.
Methane: 55 MJ/kg (15 MJ/kg including oxidizer, ratio of ~2.7 to 1)
Hydrogen: 144 MJ/kg (21-24 MJ/kg, ratio of 5-6)
RP-1/Kerosene: 35 MJ/kg (10.9 MJ/kg, ratio of 2.2)
(Oxidizer ratios pulled from actual rockets)

Given the number of practical rockets (for example, Falcon) using RP-1, 8 MJ/kg for a monopropellant that only puts out N2 would be very interesting.
From my reading, low molecular weight in the exhaust is a good thing (but relatively minor factor compared to other stuff). Which might also by why hydrogen rockets are a thing despite the hassle of H2.

N2: 28 g/mol
H2O: 18 g/mol
CO2: 44 g/mol
CH4: 16 g/mol (running rich, remember? So it is in the exhaust)
H2: 2 g/mol
RP1: 321 g/mol (which might be a reason to run O2 rich for these rockets)
O2: 32 g/mol
*stochiometric: The ratio to completely combust both chemicals. Running fuel rich means some of the fuel remains unoxidized.

Indeed! I saw plenty of skeletal jaw/teeth masks, floral prints, don't remember seeing the rolling stones one, but wouldn't have minded one bit.

I wear print T-shirts all the time, so why not?

Just don't go with the heavy iron-on type decals if they're too big, stick more to tie-die jobs that still let the fabric breath. You are trying to suck air through it.

You know, this is almost like one of those equations where you have a factor, but as you work through it, the factor is neutralized, turning out to not matter in the end?

Remember how I said "If getting non-infected people to wear masks despite the minimal benefits gets the infected to, it is worth it."

I mean, if them wearing masks makes the potentially infected maskless uncomfortable to the point that they put on the mask, then wearing it is actually still protecting them, just from secondary effects.

Plus, while the effects are minimal for a cheap reusable mask compared to a N95, they still protect the wearers some.

Everybody wearing their masks thus does indeed reduce the chances of them getting COVID.

I'm still going to disagree - masks helped reduce the spread. That's very much public health, because public health worries less about the individual and more the group, the "public" part. Fewer people infected is good, thus not theater.

Theater was things like the people wearing masks with holes cut in them.

From a public health standpoint, keeping asymptomatic carriers from infecting others is very much NOT theater. Anything that reduces the infection or spread rate is an effective control. Whether it is cost effective is a different matter, but cloth masks are cheap.
If getting non-infected people to wear masks despite the minimal benefits gets the infected to, it is worth it.
And COVID doesn't have spores.

We don't 'spin' scientific stuff as a certainty without decades or even centuries of work. We can be very highly expectant, but we have those 95 and 99% certainty bars for a reason.
If you took it as a certainty, that is on you and not the scientists. Best we had was "by what we know right now" and that changed over time with both knowledge and supply availability.
And things like wearing masks was a public health issue. It is like forcing you to have liability insurance to drive, to protect others. Why? The cloth masks didn't really protect you from being infected if you wandered around infected people without masks, but if an infected person wore a mask it really reduced the rate of them infecting others.

(And autocorrupt tried to change with into without. Why?)

Thinking one this further, it is still an observed effect in the article. You have people believing the 'comforting lies' because science is complex, in favor of simple pleads by non-scientists looking to profit by selling horse ivermectin or bleach enemas.

Makes sense to me, I've seen a lot of people distrusting all the COVID science, mostly by making statements like 'They said the vaccine would protect us!', implying that 'Science' told them that it would be 100% effective with 0% chance of side effects.
When more realistically it'd produce something like "vaccine reduced infections by 95%(+-2%, 95% certainty) in the test group 8 weeks after dosage."
Then pile on literally hundreds of studies looking at various other aspects and sub groups.

I'd imagine that they aren't turning off all the lights on the truck, so somebody looking should easily see it coming from more than 450 meters away, because the distance to SEE a light emitting object is drastically further than the distance you can see non-emitting objects illuminated by light you're emitting yourself.
Looking, the trucks seem to have all the standard lights.

Calling Belgium 3rd world isn't fair at all. It's a fledging 3rd world country at worst, nothing at all similar to the imminent 3rd world country that (say) the UK is.

Maybe when third-parties stop nominating nutballs and cranks.

Explain it. Especially don't give reading assignments that don't actually address what you're talking about.

That's the problem. I DO understand. You haven't tweaked me properly apparently to make me state it. Your explanation of segments is very lacking.

I mean, this all started with me merely disagreeing that gas stations are a 1:1 swap, and I think even you've come to the conclusion that that's correct. I'd never dispute that a lot of gas station locations would be good EV charging locations as well.

Consider that I've stated a number of differences that I see for market segmentation - there's all sorts of different models possible with charging that wasn't possible, or at least practical, with gasoline.

It's nearly 100% certain it's 12 gauge wiring on a 20A circuit.
The presence of 15A outlets doesn't actually mean much, all 15A convenience outlets are actually rated for 20A as well.
I can never say it never happens, because, well, my brother's an electrician and the stuff he regularly finds...

Any condo or apartment would normally be better off running a circuit from basically the service entrance, not individual apartments. Now, "Apartments" covers a lot, from the converted house I once lived in for a bit, to skyscrapers, to even almost converted hotels with parking out front.

Well, there you'd obviously want to pull new wire, but that isn't actually normally all that big of a deal. If you want multiple charging spots, which you probably should for an apartment, it becomes a bigger deal, but it also becomes a question of attracting tenants at some point.

That said, I think you've misunderstood something from your own link. "Innovators" and "Early Adopters" add up to 16% of the market. We're currently at ~7.4% of new cars sold being EVs, of cars on the road, only 1.4% are EV. So we're very much still in the "early adopter" stage, though the percentages can easily vary. I think that my estimates will hold well into "Early Majority", depending on how you look at it, with the number of EVs sold hitting 50%, or cars on the road reaching 50% roughly a decade after that.
If EVs want to continue taking over from ICE, of course infrastructure will need to expand to support them, from charging points to the very grid. AI is currently stressing the grid more, crazily enough, and EVs represent a massive opportunity for load shifting, so the naysayers saying the grid can't handle the extra load are very mistaken, but more generation will be needed, and if it ends up being mostly solar, it could become more beneficial to charge during the day, on average, which means encouraging work centers to install chargers.

Remember how we were talking about different market segments needing different solutions, different price points and such? It's an option, especially where somebody doesn't need the extra amps, like a limited commute, retiree, and such, and where either the service or wiring would be prohibitive.

And what do you think I was talking about? You finally said what I was trying to get at - the laggards are, besides those just too conservative to change (like my mom still having a home phone), the ones who are going to have the most complex and expensive times switching. The late majority can be those where it's just a touch more complex and therefore expensive, needing some technology development to be truly superior to ICE. The apartment dwellers and such. But we have some adoption even in the early innovation zone, seeing chargers installed at some buildings. It'll spread.