You can say you can expect, but you really can't, because if you're talking about momentum you're talking about velocity and you need a reference frame to define velocity and therefore momentum. Let's pick the sun for instance with the assumptions of A. So if we just have one portal pointing one direction and one portal pointing up and chell walks in, you should blast out straight up at 66,000 mph plus the speed she was walking then. I think you could make the reference Frame to earth and try and get a, but that would create problems too.

I think B, velocity relative to the moving portal, would be the only way to maintain some kind of consistency in game if you were going to have moving portals. Your examples are most consistent with B. A portal falls on chell, how fast does she come out? The speed the portal fell on her of course. And then she stops going out once the portal stops moving because it hit the ground and has stopped moving and they no longer have any relative difference in velocity. You could also say in the platform example that the platform was sitting still and the portal was moving down, you would emerge out the portal at the speed the first portal was moving down. Both should be equally valid ways if you want to maintain some consistency. But all of this is probably why they don't allow moving portals in the first place.

In the end though these are definitely strange unknowable physics, portals don't exist, so really you could make the game however you please, either one is perfectly valid, you could just say any velocity on the other side is whatever it was in relationship to the earth before going through, but that'd be weird, because how fast do the people move out of A then? Do they fly out at the speed of the moving portal and then suddenly stop mid air and plop straight down? If you're not moving faster than a moving portal does is become brick wall and smash you out of the way so you don't gain any velocity in relation to earth so A can be maintained? There's no way to test it in the current games. Hence the endless arguing. But I think B would be most consistent and allow for some really interesting puzzles though, especially if you had two moving portals! Or maybe 3d portals that can sit in the air and allow full movement through them in any direction to help make it possible. Portal 3? In VR with depth perception to accommodate?

Taking these medicines in the forms they are found in nature is a horrible idea. Most of the plants they come from are poisonous because the therapeutic index of most of the drugs here are low, meaning the line between medicine and poison is very fine. Purifying the ingredient and allowing tight control of the dosage is the reason any of these are able to be used safely. Please don't go around eating bits of foxglove or belladonna.

As you've seen, modern medicine is not shy about taking ingredients found in nature when they actually have a useful purpose in medicine, and enabling them to be actually used safely instead of taking some random unknown dosage of a potentially deadly drug and hoping for the best.

Except for fixing vitamin and mineral deficiencies, supplements are ineffective at best and dangerous at worst. They're in desperate need of better regulation in the United States. They scam tons of people and get away with ridiculous claims like fighting dementia based on no evidence that would be totally illegal for any actual pharmaceutical company to claim, all while selling bottles of stuff with "proprietary formulas" or claiming to have plants that aren't even in there when independent researchers look at them. All totally legal by the way, no requirement for ingredients listed on a supplement to reflect reality. Stay away if you value your health or your money. Not saying pharmaceutical companies are always shining beacons of beneficence here, obviously I have many problems with them as well, but they at least have some sort of regulated evidence base for the most part.

It shouldn't be a big deal, but prior to the Biden administration, Betsy Devos under Trump was doing everything possible to block even already available student loan forgiveness and throwing up as much roadblocks as possible. The department education had to be sued in court to get loan forgiveness granted for things they should have been helping with not blocking. And even after all that they repeatedly failed to follow their own settlements and court orders for years, just refusing to grant forgiveness. So even though a lot of forgiveness was technically already on the books, having a administration actually helping this process instead of actively trying to prevent it is a huge breath of fresh air. They also previously changed many terms in public service loan forgiveness to help it apply to more people and made lots of other positive changes that luckily the supreme court did not block. At least not yet.

They don't need amendments to the constitution to adjust the supreme court, only laws, as long as those laws don't conflict with what is written in the constitution. For instance, the reason we have nine justices and not eight or ten, is because of a law passed by congress. So congress can change that anytime it feels like. The number of justices is not set in the constitution. There's actually very few details about the supreme court in the constitution, so congress has a lot of latitude to regulate and make changes to the supreme court.

One thing that's popular that would likely require a constitutional amendment though is term limits for justices, because the lifetime appointment is a detail specified in the constitution. So basically, congress regulates and sets up the court system through passed laws, most changes to the court system including to the supreme court don't need constitutional ammendments. Alito is talking out of his ass when he says congress can't do this.

Unfortunately Congress's only real recourse if the supreme court declares themself above the law and ignores congress like Alito wants them to, would be for congress to get off its butt and impeach some justices, which seems very unlikely. I would hope Roberts and at least one other would want to avoid a constitutional crisis though that would risk a total collapse of supreme court authority, but I'm not sure. The corruption seems to run deep with a number of them.

From the article

Yeah the article is a little rosy and overstating things by using words like carbon free which obviously isn't the case, but fta:

"Retrofitting a propeller plane with fuel cells and liquid-hydrogen tanks would result in a nearly 90 percent reduction in life-cycle emissions, compared to the original aircraft, according to the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), a nonprofit think tank. That’s assuming the hydrogen is made using only renewable electricity —not with fossil fuels, the way the vast majority of hydrogen is produced today."

Battery powered commercial airplanes are a pipe dream right now, batteries are just too heavy for anything practical with flight. Solid state batteries might reduce it some but probably not enough. We'll still need some kind of mass long distance travel in the future. Once they're able to scale up renewable energy sources even more, hydrogen made with those sources could become an important storage medium for getting that energy to power planes or other things where batteries are impractical. So it makes sense to at least be exploring these technologies.

Even for right now natural gas has a higher energy to co2 ratio than other types of fuels, so it's possible there may even be a current efficiency boost, though I don't know that off the top of my head.

If every new technology was attacked saying, well it's not perfect right now so don't even bother trying, we wouldn't have electric cars or all sorts of other innovations. I agree with you on the article though, I hate when they say stuff like "look we have carbon free airplanes now" when obviously we don't.

It even got adapted as a short animated bonus episode to the Sandman TV show.

They do. The problem is people sending emails from outside servers to them don't have that rule.

You misunderstand me, I agree, just trying to generate discussion. I think the grey goo consuming the universe is the horrible hellish end result of infinite growth and a good argument that at some point moderation, priorities, and a "good enough" need to be declared. Also maybe thinking instead of growth about transformation, that innovation and newness doesn't always have to mean ever increasing consumption. What "blocks" could be exchanged for other new and interesting "blocks" instead possibly. How could the blocks be better arranged?

Newer kindles and audible can do this, but it's a little glitchy and expensive, and you have to buy both the audio book and the ebook. There is a discount buying them together, but still a lot.

IANAL, but can read, and I think many people here are totally missing what this ruling actually says and doesn't say. It says the standard that Colorado used in this man's trial was too loose and would theoretically allow for conviction of protected speech. They did not say the speech in this case was definitely protected. They did not say it wasn't threatening. It's quite possible that if Colorado now chooses to retry the case that a jury would still decide he was guilty under the stricter standard too, but they have to retry him with a trial and jury working under that stricter standard, so that the overly loose law can't be used to theoretically restrict protected speech under the first ammendment in the future. The supreme court just corrected the standard Colorado was using and kicked it back to them, they did not exonerate the guy unless Colorado chooses not to try him again. The headlines are all being written to be extra inflammatory and misleading.

Just to take it to an extreme and make it extra simple, let's say we pass a law that says, you are guilty of murder if you are anywhere vaguely near where someone was killed. A guy is caught on video clearly murdering someone. They take him to court and tell the jury in their official jury instructions, if this man was vaguely near where the murder occurred he is guilty. They of course find him guilty. Supreme court steps in and says, wait, sure he's probably guilty, but the standard you had the jury judging him by was ridiculous, that can't be the standard for a murder conviction, and would probably result on infringement of multiple constitutional rights if you keep using that standard. Do a new trial with a better standard.

Thanks for posting that! The grant was interesting. Specific aims page is down on page 107 to save others who want to read it some time.

One of their main hypotheses they wanted to test was that covid viruses they found in animals in the Wuhan market would have greater fitness than those found in wild animals due to spillover between multiple species and other differences in the environment, which in light of current events seems a reasonable hypothesis.