That 117% is based on this definition: The power conversion percentage indicated by the asterisk is derived from the optimal power (or power density) obtained from motor-driven devices in air, as reported in the corresponding literature, compared to the optimal power achieved under simulated aquatic conditions in the laboratory.

Ie. 100% is a baseline corresponding to a specific known metric and technology, so 117% isn't how much energy is actually extracted and converted but how it performs against the baseline. So don't worry, the technology doesn't break the laws of physics, just the laws of sensibilities due to poor presentation of the scientific paper.

Uhm, there are doorknobs with microprocessors and NFC these days that validates that a physical key is allowed to turn the lock so Winston's prediction isn't that far off to be entirely realized.

That brings me back, we discovered that you could send a malformed IPX/SPX packet to any computer on the network and it would instantly reboot when the network stack crashed. And so DIE.EXE was born and was used on unsuspecting targets during the weekly and very unofficial beer and snipes tournament at the office.

Almost full circle, perhaps just one more step until you get it.

The switches were tripped just after 08:08:42 and AFAIK copy-pasting 42 or 43 don't turn it into 01.

Of course they did, but that doesn't explain why anyone would write 1 as 01.

I can't see any reason why someone would write 01 sec instead of 1 sec but I can see someone writing 01 sec by mistakenly pressing AltGr/Ctrl instead of "."

We'll have to wait for a more comprehensive report that don't have that ambiguous time to make sense of that time gap.

The interesting thing here is the timing, 0.1 seconds. Two switches that need be pulled out and then moved to the CUTOFF position can't be changed within 0.1 seconds unless someone uses both hands and a synchronicity of 0.1 seconds seems very tight but possible if timed right. For a pilot to be able to do this they must turn and bend over in their seat while strapped in to be able to reach the switches with both hands. This means that it was intentional or the switches were faulty in some way and switched themselves to the CUTOFF-position. The latter can for example be due to that they were never seated correctly in the RUN-position.

So we went from the false argument "its free advertising" to "should we protect incompetence".

You sure are competent in mental gymnastics at least.

Why did you go to the trouble of inventing a strawmen argument?

And that'll teach me to proofread, it should read Your definition of free is very strange.

It wasn't free marketing, either the company suffer reputational damage for not supporting something a stupid AI said they could which will cost them money in lost customers or they develop a new future which will cost them money. Your definition of definition is very strange.

Not really, because the data actually goes back to 1850 and the 1850-1900 average temperature is used as a pre-industrial baseline which most reports use. There's also no real need to present data before 1950 about anomalies and extremes covering the majority of Europe since they are very few and can be counted as outliers.

Not necessarily, it is possible a total power failure took out both the FDR and CVR which leaves investigators with data only up to the failure point, and if that's the case it makes sense to simulate what happened afterwards to see if the plane was recoverable.

I should mentions that all modern passenger planes have redundant electrical systems and the RAT will deploy automatically it if there's a total power failure. There have been a few examples of planes that have had total power failures that managed to land with the RAT deployed but all those planes had the benefit of being in flight and not taking off.

Oh, funny how the study you cited only looked at one specific vaccine and it also says:

The study has several limitations. The vaccine was the 3-valent inactivated influenza vaccine in about 99% of our study cohort. The possibility that other influenza vaccines might have been more effective cannot be excluded.

And If we look at the average efficacy of the 2024-2025 vaccines it is >30% (see https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fflu-vaccin...).

That statement kind of ignores everything not specific to COVID-19. For example, a lot of people died because of COVID-19 but not from it because hospitals were full of COVID-19 infected who couldn't breathe on their own which made treatment of other health problems problematic. Those deaths and other deaths related to COVID-19 doesn't show up in the IFR but strangely enough the US had 1.2 million more deaths than expected during that period which is why using excess mortality is a much better indicator of how serious a virus infection spreading through the populace was.

Seems you are unaware that those who were vaccinated were less likely to have heart attacks, strokes and even dying than those who was unvaccinated and got infected. If younger people had nothing to fear from COVID-19, why wasn't the IFR 0 for them?

Have you considered to look for information outside the US binary politics and attention-whore media? There's a whole world outside the US. I also have to question your statement that people was silenced for questioning the COVID response. There was a lot of sheer stupidity and lies dressed up as debate, the assortment of celebrity grifters hocking miracle cures to the gullible and an incredible amount of mindbogglingly stupid conspiracy theories going around - none of that is questioning and AFAIK no one has ever been silenced for asking questions based on factual reality but you can prove me wrong by giving examples.

I also have to ask, who showed "almost-palpable disappointment"? You got any specifics?

But they were which should tell you something.