Maybe you’ve heard of Novell, the American company that bought SUSE in the early 2000s and then eventually sold it off. They were kind of big in the 2000s.
After many more mergers and acquisitions SUSE is (for now) back under European ownership.
Liekö tuolla niin hirveästi väliä, kerta datan siellä pilvessä pitäisi kuitenkin olla sillä tavalla kryptattua, ettei sitä voi pilviprovideri sörkkiä tai edes nähdä.
Toki en tiedä onko luottoni julkishallinnon IT-järjestelmiin niin kova, että jaksaisin uskoa sieltä löytyvän näinkään fiksua suunnittelua.
I’m a rookie and bought a pre-packaged tote bag kit that came with a hook, yarn and instructions, to make a gift for my mum. Turns out the instructions are well above my paygrade, so I’ve got some learning to do. It’s just granny squares, but the way the pattern is written down means absolutely nothing to me.
Last year I gave her a knit scarf and she really liked it, though I cheated by doing it on a knitting machine at the hacklab rather than by hand. Turns out knitting by hand is pretty hard. I had a lot of trouble tensioning the yarn the way it was naturally twisting during the knitting process.
Lol. None of this had to do with Musk. I don’t know why you brought him up.
The woman in the video is the one who brought him up.
You can’t just maneuver a space elevator. The entire way it works is it sits at one point. The amount of forces it’d put on the structure to maneuver it is insane, especially if it has to be in time to avoid a hurricane. It has to stay at the equator
OK, you’ve got space elevators wrong, and that’s OK.
In most designs the base station sits on a moving platform in the ocean. That way it can be moved around to avoid things like storms. This doesn’t put much extra force at all on the cable, because the cable is very, very long, and as a consequence even a large movement at any given point is only a small change in terms of angles.
The cable itself is also flexible, which means that even with a stationary base station it could be maneuvered to avoid collisions by pushing on it along its length.
Trash can’t be maneuvered. We don’t even know where 100% of it is.
By the time we’d actually be building a space elevator we would also undoubtedly be a lot more capable and motivated to track orbital debris along its path, and probably also able to clean it up.
You can’t shield the cable. The weight of the cable is the entire issue why we need insane materials to build it. If you add shielding then you’re adding to the weight, and therefor multiplying the size the cable needs to be.
Shielding can be very light and it would be in space, probably only along high-risk segments. In any case, it’s mostly an implementation detail that may not actually be necessary anyway.
The people who opened companies “doing research” into it have all shut down. Either it was a scam or they realized it isn’t possible.
This means absolutely nothing. Quarterly capitalism is incompatible with extremely long-term projects like space elevators, is this news to you? Nobody sane actually expects a space elevator to be built on a timescale that is of use to investors. Even if we had the requisite materials and technologies and the construction started right now, it would likely take decades to complete.
The people doing materials science adjacent to this are not doing materials science to build a space elevator. They’re just trying to come up with new useful materials.
Exactly. Where did I claim otherwise? My point is that the research has been done to show that it’s physically possible and what the approximate material requirements would be. Material science research has shown us that materials that can meet those requirements exist (carbon nanotubes, diamond nanothreads), but currently can’t be produced at scale. Thankfully such materials would also be incredibly useful for a great many other purposes, so materials research labs can stay in business investigating how to manufacture them at scale, and at some point in the future once they can be manufactured at scale, they may be used for constructing a space elevator.
Again, how is this unusual to you? This is how literally all technological development works. Theory will show that some technology is physically possible decades or even centuries before practice catches up and makes it practically possible, and after that manufacturing and economical realities may or may not make it practically feasible.
One could argue that a space elevator will never be practically feasible because e.g. launching rockets will always be cheaper, or even that it’ll never be practically possible because e.g. manufacturing the necessary quantities of advanced nanomaterials will forever be out of reach – a much more tenuous argument than the first. But no, you’ve chosen the most tenuous argument of them all, that it is physically impossible – something theory has already shown to be false.
Space elevators aren’t “pop-sci”. There’s a plenty of real research that says that one is possible. That is not to say one is going to be built any time soon (though it’s not as implausible within a century or two as one might think), but it is to say that one is not physically impossible; physics very clearly says that it’s possible. Not “on the very edge of being physically possible”. Possible, period. The margins are more than realistic.
The people who did that research weren’t idiots and did in fact account for everything you brought up rather than just assuming a perfect vacuum and spherical cows.
Sure… How do you deal with wind on a space elevator?
By maneuvering the base station to avoid high wind weather systems. Though the effect of wind on the cable would not actually be anywhere near as great as you make it out to be.
We can barely build buildings that withstand storms.
Oh, really? When’s the last time a skyscraper fell due to wind?
Then there’s also satellites and space trash which will be hitting the cable. It’s not a thing that can work on Earth.
The cable can maneuver to avoid trash and satellites, and satellites can maneuver to avoid the cable. Shielding can be applied to protect it from micrometeoroid impacts.
This video talks about some of the issues realistically, though it’s mostly focused on math. It mostly is in the position of “if it were possible, why would we even want it” though, not is it actually possible:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z5aHMB4Tje4&pp=ygUcYXJlIHNwYWNlIGVsZXZhdG9ycyBwb3NzaWJsZQ%3D%3D
“Why would we even want it” is such a colossally idiotic question that it could only have been uttered by a regressive leftist who’s so brain broken by their Elon Musk hateboner that they literally become the guy in the below image, and lo and behold that’s exactly what I found by clicking open the video. “Uhhhh we don’t need more satellites in space actually because uhhh we have problems down here right now? And uhh billionaire tourism le bad.”
I am so fucking sick of terminally status quo brained people like this who view everything through a lens of present-day American politics and are as a result completely unable to envision a better world.
Archive.is too good for this world
No, it’s not physically impossible. For an explanation see my previous comment.
I find it funny that you started this conversation by telling me that I’ve “got space elevators wrong” and then proceeded to spout strange and verifiably false nonsense like this on multiple different points.
I hope you’re right, but on the other hand let’s not forget that Hitler started out by wooing the working class with socialist rhetoric, but got in bed with bankers and industry moguls as soon as enough of the working class was tricked into supporting him.
This is, in many ways, exactly what Trump has done too. His rhetoric was never socialist, but then the American working class has gone through 50 years of conditioning to ensure that capitalist rhetoric of a certain kind appeals to them more than socialist rhetoric.
It’s not “physically impossible” on Earth. The forces involved are great, sure, which means you can’t build it out of any present-day material like steel, but they’re not so great that constructing a space elevator would be physically impossible using non-exotic matter like it would be on, say, the Sun, or possibly even just Jupiter. We already know of materials that could be used to make a space elevator cable on Earth if they were available in sufficient quantities – namely carbon nanotubes.
The “top” can’t be anywhere, because not everywhere along the length of the elevator will put released objects in orbit. Turns out on Earth, an object released off of the elevator would reach a stable (but very eccentric) orbit 2/3rds of the way to geostationary orbit – below that, it would fall back to Earth. Conversely escape velocity would be reached at about 53000 km, which is past geostationary orbit but much closer than where the counterweight would be (in most designs?). Objects above escape velocity will by definition escape Earth’s orbit, which most of the time means ending up in a solar orbit.
The counterweight orbits above escape velocity, pulling the space elevator’s cable taut. If the cable were severed the counterweight would drift off into space into a solar orbit. So if you jump off at the counterweight, you’ll enter solar orbit.
At geostationary orbit (which could be considered the “top” of the space elevator as that’s where you would normally get off, presumably) the space elevator orbits at exactly orbital velocity, so if you jump off there you end up in orbit. Below that your velocity would be below orbital velocity and you’d fall back to Earth.
Wouldn’t jumping off the top of a space elevator just put you in orbit? Or, if by top you mean the point where the space elevator anchors to its counterweight, in orbit around the sun.
The teeth regrowth thing was only two years ago.
My biggest issue with it is actually this part from a paragraph where they bemoan the fact that food safety authorities are doing nothing about this issue:
The maximum amount of lead permitted in food supplements according to the EFSA is 3,000 ppb (3 mg/kg), a level that CR’s food safety experts say is far too high to be health protective.
This is technically true and 3 mg/kg is indeed insanely high and obviously intended for like vitamin pills and such with serving sizes measured in single-digit grams. However, the EFSA has a ton of lead-related regulations, and not all shake powders fall under the food supplements category. I do not have any statistics at hand of how common it is for protein powders to label themselves as food supplements rather than as some kind of composite dish, but I do have one anecdote.
After I read that CR article I checked what the situation was for my shake powder of choice (Queal, a meal replacement product rather than a protein powder per se), and it is not considered a food supplement. Instead it’s some kind of composite food product (I quote: 2106.9098.49 (Generic Miscellaneous edible preparations Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included)), which under EFSA rules has to test both the raw ingredients as well as the final product, and the final product basically isn’t permitted to introduce extra lead that wasn’t there in the raw ingredients, though the actual regulation is quite complicated in this regard.
That protein shake will probably replace some other kind of food you would otherwise eaten and which will naturally contain some amount of lead, so it’s not just a straight up increase on top of your normal daily intake.
But yeah, you’re right, avoiding the ones with unusually high lead levels like the Huel powder obviously makes sense.
The way the CR report presents their data is super terrible – they present it as a per-serving percentage of their arbitrarily-defined concern level of 0.5 µg/day (which by the way is 2.5% of that 21 µg average you cite; unrealistically low) and the serving size they use is whatever the American label of the product reports (serving sizes on American back labels are notoriously arbitrary).
Anyway, the most sensible number I can find in their article is this:
The average concentration of lead in the chocolate- and vanilla-flavored products we tested was 17.3 parts per billion and 15.4 ppb, respectively.
17 ppb is 0.017 mg/kg, which is far below what the EU considers the maximum safe level for any food category, except for infant formula where it’s only just below the maximum of 0.020 mg/kg (and exceeds the liquid infant formula max of 0.010 mg/kg, but then these are mostly powders).
According to the report you linked section 3.1.2, 17 µg/kg seems to be pretty closely in line with the average for general foodstuffs. For example dairy has a median lower bound of 2.50 and upper bound of 9.77 µg/kg, while cereals and grains are 11.0 to 28.2.
One funny thing in that EFSA report is this line:
Products for non-standard diets, food imitates and food supplements 8691 55 272 298 874 874
which shows that food supplements (which presumably includes protein powders, but will also include a lot of other stuff like vitamin pills) had, in that study, a median lead content of LB 272 µg/kg and UB 298 µg/kg.
This is a lot more than mildly infuriating, even as a non-brit.
You should know that the Consumer Reports article was a bit of a nothingburger and/or a classic State of California-style overreaction. Even one of the worst products on it (Huel Black) had 7 µg of lead per 100 g of product, which is equal to 0.07 mg/kg, which is less than half of what the EU considers a safe level for e.g. cereals and pulses (0.20 mg/kg).
The assertion that there is no safe level of lead may or may not be true, but our natural environment even without human pollution has lead in it, which makes its way up the food chain into our foods, and ingesting it is unavoidable unless you only eat produce grown in a hydroponics lab or something. As a result, humans have some natural resistance to the toxicity of lead.
Kuulostaa siltä, että tuossa myydään lähinnä brändiä, josta ei ikinä kannata maksaa mitään.
Ongelma tietty on siinä, että mistä tietää milloin tuote on oikeasti laadukas ja milloin viiden pennin Temu-roinaa, jonka hinta satakertaistuu kun siihen leimataan modernin näköisellä fontilla kirjoitettu logo ja “Designed in Finland” -teksti kylkeen.
Harvoin tuota voi tietääkkään, jos ei pääse tunnustelemaan laitetta hyvin tarkkaan ennen ostopäätöstä. Itse aika mututuntumalla välttelen noita Giganttien ja Prismojen hyllyillä olevia “design”-tuotteita, koska tuntuvat säännöstään kuuluvan tähän kategoriaan.
The video is about a guy called John Forester, who was a road racing cyclist who vocally opposed all cycling infrastructure, arguing for what he called “vehicular cycling” where you ride on the road among cars following the same rules as cars, which, in his view, was safer than separate bicycle paths, which according to him were very unsafe. He was a vocal critic of cycling infrastructure and apparently quite influential in the US.
He wrote a 800-page
bookmanifesto titled Effective Cycling where he argues that any form of cycling except riding racing bicycles at high speed wearing lycra is a complete waste of time, fit only for children. It’s also full of more questionable traffic safety advice.