They're trying to do every type of game and act like Fortnite is it's own OS/device, in a sense. It has racing, it has Lego, it has building, it has guitar hero
I knew I'd miss it this year. Honestly, just didn't decorate so no candy. It got me thinking though. Maybe something like an automatic pet feeder can curtail the greedy little shits. Obviously, the feeder would have to be out of reach.
I do the same, minus the fire pit and friends but add in a costume. I've been a drunk pirate lately. I used to jump scares, but I find this routine more fun because, apparently, everyone is on edge and creep scares are jsit as easy
Dept of Education? D O Emissions? Can't figure it out even with some searching
A deer will shatter your nose fairing and snap handlebars at speed. The next object to catch the deer is your head and torso. No, the burly batwing fairings on a full dresser cruiser are not any stronger than the nose cone on a sport bike when it comes to a 200lb meat bag approaching at 70mph.
So many myths perpetuated by people who bucked classes and PRACTICE in favor of their uncle's advice.
Exactly this. If you commute by car, this is likely the first time in 9+ hours that you're not expected to perform for someone. Navigate traffic, do your job, navigate traffic. Some people can decompress and turn off in public transportation, but not everyone - and anyone driving from the station is probably navigating a shitty traffic pattern at the hub, adding to the stress of a short drive.
Me, I did it for all that plus feeling listless and like there's no value in actually going inside. I'm gonna go to my chair and sit on my phone. So why do the walk? Why pass my parents and give some undetailed recount of my day at work? Why deal with a dog happy to see me again today and have to put mental resources into reciprocating when I don't feel like it? Why see if my girlfriend wants to get dinner (and pick where) when I know it's going to be 20 minutes of "I don't know"? There can be so much stress with going into your home that for a few more minutes, everyone will assume you're still driving but you can just clam up by yourself.
The portion of the global population that experiences fall colors is somewhat high, but I never really thought about how little of the world's land sees it. Northeast north america, half of Europe, and part of China. Warmer places don't make trees go into winter mode and colder places don't support deciduous trees as well. It can't be too dry for them, either, which precludes much of the southern hemisphere. So it happens across the globe mostly in the same couple of months
I read this as you saying OP's claim was a fallacy but a re-read (and small dive into what type of Xerox you are) makes me beleive you meant binary thinking itself is a logical fallacy
I think you're falsely categorizing action as binary thinking and supporting OP's thought. Say I want to help people with some extra money - I have $100 (in singles) to give and 5 people in need. I'm not locked into "giving or not giving" or stuck giving to 1 person and not giving to 4 people. I can give everyone $20 evenly. I can $10 to one and $90 to another. I can give $5, $15, $25, $25, and $30 to them based on apparent need. I can give $0. Dividing this up into 5 individual binary actions... Actually, 100 individual actions (each dollar), dishonestly represents the overall opportunity and outcome.
And that's just for one case where it's a zero-sum game with my limited pot of $100. That's a prime type of case where some majority groups would beleive anything not directly given to them is, effectively, taken from them - more binary thinking. That doesn't account for status change, further income, and understand that social welfare budgets are insanely smaller than the gratuitous budgets of other departments.
There's 2 significant inaccuracies in the article and 1 large oversight in the official video.
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.
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.
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.
Farmland? Or near-residential plots?