For those who want to laugh at the headline and not take 3 minutes to read the article:

An investigation of Livelsberger’s searches through ChatGPT indicate he was looking for information on explosive targets, the speed at which certain rounds of ammunition would travel and whether fireworks were legal in Arizona.

Kevin McMahill, sheriff of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, called the use of generative AI a “game-changer” and said the department was sharing information with other law enforcement agencies.

So the embarrassment comes from the sheriff's response, thinking ChatGPT is a game changer for its... Advanced googling and potential hallucinations.

Anyway, while I don't want to fuel better terrorism, the gearhead in me is seething with this other part.

stopped to pour race-grade fuel into the vehicle, which it then dripped

High octane gas is not extra spicy gasoline. Race gas is not super spicy gasoline. The higher the octane, the less flammable it is. Marginally, but octane is not an explosiveness rating. It's literally anti explosiveness - called anti-knock capability. Knock is when the fuel/air mixture self ignites, namely before the spark. High performance engines tend to have higher compression and run hotter, making predetonaion (knock) more likely. Higher octane fights this condition so it combust at the correct time.

Stop putting high octane in cars that say use regular. Some can account for it, but high octane is wasted on many normal cars. And it's not cleaner. Gas station chains may add cleaners to upsell you on vpower or invigorate, but that's just a marketing ploy. Get injector cleaner once a year for a lot cheaper if you must.

I'm always surprised to go another day where I don't hear anyone mention the risk of this mixup with Tushy, the anal porn site, and Hello Tushy, the bidet company.

"It was a clear case of a cult game failing to find a broader audience."

The non-gamers assumed it was about the game. The gamers knew it wasn't about the game. It failed to find any audience. And a decade too late.

Instructions unclear, made chili

2x2PT has been 1.25x1.25 for as long as I can remember (10 years or more). It's only the pressure treated deck stuff for railings. This does not apply to the rest of the 2x lumber, as those are still 1.5 actual. I got Simpson corner 2x2 brackets for crazy cheap way back but ended up not really using them. The 2x2s are warped to hell and a ripped 2x4 was too big in the original 2x dimension.

RIP. Rest in Interstellar sPace

Amazon is still sketchy with legitimacy of product. Fake product can get mixed into legit bins of product if the main seller doesn't pay extra for dedicated bins, separate from other sellers selling "the same" products.

"we have to irresponsibly spend the remainder of our budget so it doesn't get reduced next year" followed one month later by "we need more money because we maxed out the budget last year"

Fuck this atrocious cycle. It's everywhere. Military, police, any other government branch, corporate politics, 501c orgs pretending to be charities... The greatest crime is stockpiling unsent capital, apparently.

There's a model X near me with a bumper sticker that says "we bought this before we knew Elon was crazy"

There's 2 significant inaccuracies in the article and 1 large oversight in the official video.

1. Differentials are not one wheel drive. They can seem to drive only one wheel when spinning the wheels as one let's loose and the other stays still, but it's not driving one wheel. It's still driving both. The problem is the free wheel is spinning at twice the speed indicated on the speedometer and the other is at 0. The driveshaft puts in a certain number of turns, the wheels, together, must add up to an equal output (multiplied by the gear ratio). If the car is going straight with full traction, then they turn the same. If you floor it in snow, one is probably spinning 40% over it's share and the other 40% under. This is not unique to rwd either as fwd cars still very much have a functioning differential. To throw some numbers at it to help clarify the function, let's say the engine is asking the wheels to spin at 30rpm each in a straight line. In a left turn, the right wheel travels further and needs to spin at 35rpm while the inner spins at 25rpm. It still adds up to 60rpm, same as a straight line. Mash it in the snow and it might be 60rpm in the left and 0nin the right or 0 in the left and 60 in the left. It could be 5/55, 40/20, or any other combo as long as it totals 60.

PS: differentials are irrelevant when the wheels aren't connected to each other. Individual-motor wheels, as shown in the video, don't need a diff. The non-drive wheels in a 2-wheel drive vehicle do not have a differential on the non-drive axle.

2. Cv joints are not specific to fwd as nearly all modern rwd cars with independent rear suspensions have CV joints. I don't know of any trucks still using U-joints either since big trucks are solid axle. Cv joints function the same as U joints. The difference is C.V. joints output constant velocity whereas U-joints (what you'll see often under trucks on the driveshaft, two square C shaft ends with an X link between) have lopey output that gets worse with greater deflection angle. If you own a u-joint bit for your socket wrench, I invite you to play with it. Instead of a solid pinned X between the U ends, CVs have free-rolling balls that can roll inboard and outboard to maintain the link between the shaft's cup and the wheel's cone.

3. The article is inaccurate but the video ignores this part, so I don't fault The writer. The CV joints are said to be a poor design, yet, it ignores the part where the video reinstalls them at 4:20 and 5:10 for the front wheels. This mechanism does not allow angular deflection between the motor and hub, as it's shown, without a CV joint. Lateral displacement, yes, but not angular - as in it can't steer. This may be an overall improvement by reducing how often it needs to bend (only when steering), but it doesn't eliminate it. And even then, the rear suspension is still designed to change camber as it changes ride height. Camber is the angle of the wheel as measured top to bottom, as in what you see from looking at the wheels from the front of the car. It keeps the wheels flat on the ground as you lean the car in a corner. You may see an overloaded car's rear wheels look like /---\ as viewed from the rear or ---/ when hanging free on a lift.

Look, I'm not an engineer at Hyundai (or even a competitor) but this doesn't quite pass the sniff test. Cool idea for sure, but it smells a little like marketing is clamoring for something edgy to display. Even as displayed, the motors and original reduces were already very compact and in close proximity to the wheels compared to a normal engine. The slightly reduced footprint of this uni wheel and slightly increased friction of a bunch of additional gears makes me think this is a fractional improvement in practice rather than a revolutionary improvement.

That's the neat thing. The speed of light is constant. It doesn't change. It's always 1c whether you're traveling at +1c, - 1c, or 0c. Buckle up for some relativity. The wavelength can compress or expand, but it always travels at 1c.

Let's say you're on a ship capable of moving at any speed between 0c and 1c. You're passing a particular star and want to travel to a planet 1ly away. You have a powerful laser and the other planet has a powerful telescope to detect it. There are calibrated timers on both the planet and on your ship that are synced to each other. .

T minus zero. You flash the laser at the planet as you fly at 0.5c, or 1/2 lightyear per year. The light travels at 1c, or 1ly per year.

1 year after the flash, the planet sees the flash. It traveled 1ly in 1 year. 2 years after the flash, the planet sees your ship arrive. All is normal so far.

From the ship, you know the light traveled at 1c away from you. You arrive at the planet 1 year after the flash, according to your on board timer. One. The light took half as long as you.

Time is not constant, c is constant. The faster you go, the slower time passes. In 1 year of fast travel, you arrive 2 years later, according to the stationary planet. So all of the light physics apply the same, no matter the speed. Time dilates to make up the logical difference. If you reach 1c, time effectively stops and you arrive instantaneously, from your perspective. When we look up at the Andromeda galaxy, some 2.5 million lightyears away, the light we see was emmited 2.5 million years ago - from our perspective. If we see a star go supernova in Andromeda, it happened 2.5 million years ago. But those photons of light, created by a star that died 2.5 million years ago, experience no time passage at all. They instantaneously go from the star to your retina, from their perspective.

That's basically why lightspeed travel is effectively impossible within our current models. Traveling faster is out of the question because none of it makes sense. It's not a simple matter of making a new model or believing scientists are idiots. There are many experiments that hold true to the model (such as the atomic clocks used on a plane to test the effect of speed and gravity on time dilation) as well as satellites using the current model to maintain time accuracy. The energy required to get to those speeds is not even remotely feasible. The fastest man made object at 450,000+mph, the Parker solar probe, is still in the 0.0005c range. We tried our best and it's still just a tiny fraction of 1c. And that's by using some gravity slingshots and spiraling down into the sun's gravity well, nothing about leaving the solar system. The Voyager probes that slingshotted out of the sun's gravity well are down to under 40,000mph.

You can see on the left where they tried then realized it was way too big of a task. I probably would have tried a little harder to get some white in the right spot, but definitely not perfectly. Not even close. I ain't mad