99% sure with out even googling it JWST spends most of it time collecting photons not processing them. If faster processing would allow it to take pictures faster you can be sure they would have figured out a way to cram more in or shield a modern processor.

From the paper
On May 19, 2018 (2018.38), S2 passed pericentre at 120 AU (1400RS) with an orbital speed of 7700 km/s-1
I did some terrible math (Cause I don't understand most of the words in that paper) and came up with a pull of 1.71m/s^2 at that distance; so that's probably not close enough to get any extreme space time effects, but that can't be good for the star.

I call BS. The human eyes have no special powers over any old camera they can strap to a car and we can "see" 3D just fine. And seeing 3D is hardly even the problem to begin with or LIDAR would be the savior and people with one eye wouldn't be able to drive. The problem is image classification and prediction. What is that blob? Is it a bicycle? Maybe a billboard with a picture of bicycle? Is there someone on that bike? Are they moving? Which way? Do they see me? ETC Using things like LIDAR, Radar, or any anything else is simply a crutch to help the software do a better job; but the problem is still 100% in software.

Why would game company’s shell out billions to build giant gaming centres all across the country when gamers are already willing to pay for the hardware themselves?
And really physics is against them data can only move so fast, as anyone who has tried Steam's in house streaming can testify that is going to depend on the game. A lot of games like simulation or strategy games will work fine over a very low latency network. But just as many games, as in every first person shooter, the slight delay between mouse input and reaction is very real and noticeable.

You don't seem to realize that those stick tickers already back factor in stock splits.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fnews%2Fa...
Apple's stock remained resilient as traders came to terms with the death of Steve Jobs, the company's iconic co-founder and chairman. After see-sawing through much of Thursday's session, shares in Apple (AAPL) slipped 0.2 percent, or 88 cents, to close at $377.37.
Your calculation is WAY off. Apple's stock has done good but it hasn't done THAT good.

Yes.
Bitcoin has two contradictory goals. On the one hand it needs everyone to have the same information. The network couldn't work if I think I have 10 coins and you think I have 5. The way this classically works is you just have an authority keep track of it, the bank. You can simply ask the bank how much money you or anyone else has in the account.
But bitcoin doesn't want a central authority so how can it keep track of who owns what and whose paid who? It uses a consensus based on whatever group has the most computing power. And they're rewarded for this work with a few new bitcoins and that reward is called 'mining'.
So 'mining' is simply the act of gathering up all the transactions the network wants to do and 'signing' it with your massive computer power and pushing it out to the world. You can't have transactions with out mining.
However bitcoin scales directly to the mining power on the network, so if everyone just closed up right and only you were left you could run all the transactions on a general purpose CPU if needed. So there is no reason it has to be wasteful, but the way it works is the greater the reward for mining the more it encourages people to waste electricity.

Not really. Since bitcoins specifically ties mining activity to confirming transactions it's fair to link them. Now could it cost a lot less energy to confirm a transaction? Easily, but the design of bitcoin ensures that people will 'waste' as much energy as economically feasible to mine them and thus ensures the energy cost will remain high.
This is epically true since bitcoins whole purpose is to conduct transactions so it would be fair to consider all the computers, network equipment, man hours, etc in the entire system as a direct cost of conducting those transactions.
This wouldn't be any different then looking at all of Visas equipment and energy costs and dividing by the number of transactions it conducts per day to arrive at a 'cost' of swiping your credit card.

Does it matter? The more efficient miners will drive up the complexity not drive down the usage of electricity.
Bitcoin is basically designed to ensure people waste as much electricity as possible.

Stories like this always remind be about how good we are at detecting radioactivity then any real threat from the radiation itself. This detection represents something on the order of 1 billionth a gram of cesium per cubic meter of water.

It's not the cost of the tube, it's the cost of putting a tube across 1000s of peoples land, crossing rivers and mountains with limited access for machinery, and all the other random things you'll find trying to cross large stretches of land. If you've already set about putting a brand new Maglev train in place; the added cost of simply enclosing it in a large tube isn't likely to be very much in the grand scheme of things.

I always thought it seemed kind of foolish to run the web service and the tor node on the same system. Seems like it would be better to run the tor node on its own system and act as a gateway for the web server (with all appropriate firewall rules to prevent server from talking to anyone besides tor node) This would not only prevent this kind of attack where local host traffic is semi trusted. But perhaps more significantly it would prevent the webserver from ever leaking it's public address as it can't know what it is. My 2 cents

Ignore my other post... apparently link got striped out
Actually it can, and does tell them everything.
U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement

Actually it can, and does tell them everything.
U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement

Yah; I guess my own language basis got in the way of reading comprehension. Can't ever think of a time of writing a 'where' statement, but in an SQL context that makes perfect sense.

That and while is normally used for loops... 'IF' would have been more appropriate for his example. But since we all got his point the example served its point.