The assesment that he's the wealthiest person on earth is pretty dubious, actually. The analyses which list the worlds wealthiest people always are, because they have to decide what counts as wealth and how to count it.
Normally that's fairly easy, but for very powerful people (who, as you point out, the people at the top of those lists are) it gets murky because of things like stocks and options which they could liquidate in theory, but which would crash in value if they tried to actually do so. Does it still count as wealth if it only exists so long as you don't spend it?
There are also people who's wealth isn't held in any currency, or gold, or stocks. How do you measure the wealth or power of a sovereign king, or any other kind of dictator? You certainly can't neatly put it in a scale alongside people who just have a dragon's horde of cash somewhere, that wouldn't be comparing like for like
I would describe it as being in free-fall whenever it's not in being held up by any interaction with a solid surface, even indirectly. I'm not sure everyone would agree with my definition, but it's not a term you'll see used much in serious engineering precisely because it is a bit vague.
For example, an aircraft in flight isn't in free-fall because it's being held up by the air, which is in turn held up by the ground. An aircraft (or spacecraft) which has no wings is being slowed down by air resistance, but not actually held up and is therefore in free-fall.
An ascending rocket is generating forces which hold it up, rather than transferring forces to something which won't move (like the ground), so I would consider it to be in free-fall
No, even when the engines are firing it's in free-fall. The only forces on the booster or fuel (aside from internal ones like gyroscopic or centrifugal dynamics) are thrust, control thrusters, and depending on the phase of flight drag & aerodynamic control.
Thrust always points roughly along the length of the booster, and drag always acts against the direction of travel, so the external forces acting on the fuel are almost 100% up or down during all phases of flight. The only exceptions are manoeuvres when the attitude control systems is rotating the vehicle, either by grid-fin or thrusters, so any redistribution of the fuel or snow will be entirely driven by those movements, and their own inertia
I was highly irritated by the erroneous claim that things would settle to the earth-facing side of the tank though. The damn thing's in free-fall, the direction of the gravity vector is entirely irrelevant! The conclusions mostly still work, but it has more to do with jostling and slosh causing the snow to move, not gravity
While we can all agree Trump is an ass, I think you've misunderstood this statement.
He's not saying "it's important that republicans don't vote if we fail to solve the election fraud", he's saying "it's important to solve the fraud, because otherwise next time republicans won't be allowed to vote".
He's claiming that republican votes won't be counted, or that they won't be allowed to place a vote at all, because the democrats will have rigged the system and/or deprived them of the right to vote
The actual length of the password isn't the problem.
If they were "doing stuff right" then it would make no difference to them whether the password was 20 characters or 200, because once it was hashed both would be stored in the same amount of space.
The fact that they've specified a limit is strong evidence that they'renot doing it right
HARM is a category of weapon which seeks things like radar or jammers. They weren't suggesting that the jammers are literally harmless.
In unrelated news: the jammers are, in fact, harmless unless you're making a habit of riding on top of the tank. The radio energy isn't going to penetrate a significant thickness of conductive material, such as armour plating. Or unless you're the person being jammed, in which case they're a different category of harmful
I've seen another thread in which someone shared what they claim to be a table of the actual data on which the accusation is based. Unless they were making it up entirely, then it's pretty clear that the data is simply wrong. It was littered with what could only be typos involving misplaced decimal points, with consecutive measurements being different by almost exactly a factor of 1000
Destroying a nuclear sub, or a nuclear weapon, doesn't lead to a nuclear explosion. It takes considerable care to cause a nuclear explosion, and smashing a reactor or warhead just leaves you with a pile of radioactive scrap.
Not saying that isn't a problem, but it's way less of a problem than a nuclear explosion
Can anyone explain to me what the exemption actually is? The article keeps mentioning "minimum steering angle", but I'm not sure what that means. Is it as simple as saying the steering wheel must have at least some particular range of travel?
They should last indefinitely so long as the process of accretion which created these nodules keeps going. A battery becomes drained when the chemical interaction between the two metals uses up all the available metal, which happens quite fast in our modern batteries because we've designed them that way.
We've made them powerful and cheap by using relatively small amounts of each metal, spread thin and sandwiched together. The downside is that those things films of metal get used up fast.
These nodules, meanwhile, are lumps of metal. They won't produce lots of power all at once, but they can generate small amounts for ages, and so long as they grow faster than the metal gets used up (it doesn't actually go anywhere, it just changes chemically) they'll keep going
I know that for two reasons: first, we already know that oxygen concentration in the deep ocean is generally pretty low compared to the surface, and second we can already account for the general composition of our atmosphere. There just isn't a big chunk of mystery oxygen who's source we can't identify.
While it's not impossible that we're mistaken and a bunch of it is coming from somewhere other than where we expect, it's sufficiently unlikely that I'm comfortable making such statements I told and unless presented with evidence to the contrary.
The article is being pretty hyperbolic. There's no mystery here, this is just something which happens if you put two different metals together. It's nothing more or less than a crude battery, just like the ancestors of the AA battery the article kept harping on about.
This discovery could be important for people studying the climate on very early Earth, people studying early life, and the ecology of the deep sea today.
That last one is particularly troubling, though. If this is widespread, then this might be a major source of what little oxygen is down there. If so, then taking those nodules away (like a lot of people are keen to do, since some of the metals they're made of are valuable) could destroy an entire ecosystem.
We can, it's just electrolysis. All you need is electricity, and these nodules are simply batteries.
We're not short of oxygen up here though, so it's not terribly useful. We could get hydrogen that way, which would be greener than the way we get it at industrial scale now, but it would be way more expensive
I was about to dismiss that out of hand, presuming you just didn't know the film, but I think you're right. His face is too wide, and the hairline doesn't match the original footage.
I'm simultaneously impressed by a pretty slick edit, and bewildered that anyone would put in the effort
Edit: and now I look like an idiot, because OP swapped the gif for a original.
I swear guys, it was uncanny
They haven't hijacked that, it's their turn to chair it. The core members of that council take turns to do that.
You do realise that the key reason for that council to exist is so that nuclear armed powers talk to each other, right? However much we may disapprove of Russia's wartime policies, the council is doing its job so long as there's neutral ground where everyone else can talk to them about it rather than getting itchy trigger fingers
Cuboids are prisms. Specially, they're rectangular prisms