[-] decerian@lemmy.world 34 points 2 weeks ago

Nonsense! Zoidberg's a fine physician. For Aliens. Your mistake is being human!

[-] decerian@lemmy.world 76 points 3 weeks ago

I disagree there - peer review as a system isn't designed to catch fraud at all, it's designed to ensure that studies that get published meet a minimum standard for competence. Reviewers aren't asked to look for fake data, and in most cases aren't trained to spot it either.

Whether we need to create a new system that is designed to catch fraud prior to publication is a whole different question.

[-] decerian@lemmy.world 26 points 6 months ago

How long did you play BoI for if getting burned out on Hades after 40hrs was fairly quick?

[-] decerian@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago

Gravity and vacuum are not mutually exclusive - you always have to deal with gravity forces, although they become negligible pretty quickly when you get into and then leave orbits.

As to the specific claim, I suspect that the experiments they are currently doing (in vacuum chambers on earth) have gotten to the point that they are measuring the propulsion system producing more thrust than it's own weight (T/W >1), which would technically be enough thrust to overcome gravity. Even if it wasn't practically useful for actually getting to orbit, that amount of thrust on a reactionless motor would be incredible, and would totally unlock the solar system for us.

[-] decerian@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago

If you're mixing things up in the kitchen, typically you try to be somewhat precise with ratios.

The difference in this case being that because the actual ratio of the blend is unknown, you don't actually know how it would crystallize. Technically they could even change up the ratio week to week based on the price of high-fructose corn syrup so you wouldn't even get consistency from it.

[-] decerian@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago

The above post is referencing/quoting a line from the show "It's always sunny in Philadelphia", which is why people up voting it

[-] decerian@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago

Believe it or not, but companies outside of Boeing and Airbus are capable of designing airplanes.

It's not just "good" regulation holding them back either - in 2017 Boeing accused Bombardier of "dumping" some CSeries planes because they sold them to Delta at below the retail cost (about a 30% discount). The CSeries was/is a good plane, but took an incredibly long time to get through certification so Bombardier had been losing money and was desperate to sell them. Boeing complained about this discount to the US International Trade Commission who imposed a massive fine on Bombardier. Because of the delays, Bombardier couldn't afford to fight the fine so they ended up having to give up a 50% stake in the design to Airbus for only $1. The year after, the fines were appealed and overturned, but the damage was already done. Bombardier has since completely sold their stake in the CSeries (one less competitor), and Airbus gets the renamed A220 series for a massive discount.

As an aside, I can't argue that the FAA doesn't do more good than harm in this space generally, but I'm the last ~5 years it's becoming clear to me that they have a massive blindspot for Boeing in particular.

[-] decerian@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

On top of that, IIRC the student loan aid was executive action alone (i.e. Biden specifically enacted it) while the pandemic checks were passed by congress so at best Trump might be able to say he pushed for it but it was still congress that made it happen.

[-] decerian@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

Probably the novel on which the movie was based.

[-] decerian@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Off duty, but still fully willing to be introduced as a clinical psychologist at the start of the podcast, and to consistently refer to himself as a practicing clinical psychologist in these interviews.

He wants to have it both ways clearly

[-] decerian@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Those stats are misleading though. Autopilot only runs on highways, which are much safer per mile even for human drivers.

Tesla are basically comparing their system, which only runs in pristine, ideal conditions, against an average human that has to deal with the real world.

As far as I'm aware they haven't released safety per mile data from the FSD cars yet, and until they do I will remain skeptical about how much safer it currently is.

[-] decerian@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

I'm guessing that they are (falsely) equating it to the hindenburg, when IMO it wouldn't be much different safety-wise than current fossil fuel powered planes.

It's not like they would be filling the wings and luggage compartment with free-floating hydrogen, it stays in it's tank

view more: next ›

decerian

joined 1 year ago