I am pretty sure that he is just favouring friends handling their competition...
sircac
joined 2 years ago
Information and entropy changed, if you melt ice figures to refrozen the water again you go the other way around, but you have introduced/extracted things during the process, so I stop seeing the philosophical wonder.
To begin with "how many things are in the room?" an in-depth list should include all the energy in all their forms, including matter and organisation, and when you perform processes that change this you logically vary the full list of things in the room.
Infrastructures are expensive. Startegic ones must be owend and maintained by all the people for the people, regardless individual usage, since being strategic have impact in every individual.
Except in Italy, nearly the totality of the coast is privately handled and you must pay to access it...
The theoretical minimum would be sharing any instant of their lives, during which they could not sustain an unfettered access to anything, not like I would consider it a decent minimum in any case (I was revolving around the "unfettered access" concept of the previous comment), but I cannot imagine how it would exists any threshold of supervision above which you can exclude any unfettered access at any given moment of their existence, risk of harmful exposition never drops to zero, so argue an Orwellian measure for the indiscriminate shake of their safety has no sense to me...
For me it is not only that they used AI for the writing, is that they did not care to review/recheck/polishing it before releasing it to the public, so my effort in consuming it will be reciprocal
Indeed, unfettered in a literal sense cannot happen even with the most minimum supervision, but regardless of the threshold in parenting (I am not going to pardon parents responsibility on this, but good luck asserting 100% supervision), circumventions will always take place, so with more reason it cannot be used the "kids safety" argument to bring Orwellian levels to everybody's lifes
Physical coupling and emergency decoupling of a fuel tube in flight due to engaging or having to land and take off from an air carrier seems necessarily more slow and risky than beam interrumpion or nor having to land/take off at all.
Current batteries have not been under the same amount of research than fuel deposits, so I think that being matture enough, contacless repowering seems a great asset in any scenario.
I have the feeling that current refueling in flight procedures are clearly more vulnerable than this approach that do not require physical coupling, for whatever these are useful (increasing operation autonomy, etc) the same for having to land in air carriers to extend patrolling times, this electric alternative seem safer in both scenarios, and at least with no more weak points than the fuel alternatives.
If is necessary to reload ammo no refueling-in-flight technology applies of course.
And if something blow up the damage radio clearly propagate immediately further than a battery fire, though regaring the situation a persistent fire can become also problematic, but these battery issues are still experiencing improvements, same happened with fuel counterparts (self sealing deposits, etc).
If this technology matures also recharging times will drop, we are seeing huge advances in plugged batteries.
I still see many advantages to the concept.
view more: next ›
Those are weird priorities...