SonicScrub

I don't really see how the Highway 17 situation is unique in the context of winter storms though. As per the comment above this, most transit of East and West goods occurs via other means, meaning the Highway 17 bottleneck is hardly some vital artery. A winter storm shutting down Highway 401 for example is much more economically chaotic, and has the practical impact of making travel through its corridor impractical (and in some circumstances just as impossible as if it were a single bottleneck). This scenario does periodically happen, and people manage just fine since the closures are expected to be short-lived.

So I don't buy the argument that Canada needs the US because of the threat of transit networks being completely cut off. I am much more amiable to the argument that reciprocal road tolls like this would be stupid because they'd increase the cost of goods for all of us (Canadians and Americans alike). As noted earlier, the fastest route between East and West is through the US due to geography. But or course things like this are stupid, and I doubt an argument as to why is required here. Maybe we should pull back and stop doing all this nonsense like arbitrary tariffs on close allied nations? Especially those who's explicit purpose as described by the elected head of state is to threaten the sovereignty of the other?

The parent comment is likely referring to Highway 17, which is the only road connection between Manitoba and Ontario. A boulder once fell on this highway leading to its closure for a period of time.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/winnipeg/article/how-crews-cleared-a-...

I've seen this incident be the subject of hyperbolic clickbait articles and YouTube videos discussing the complete cutting off of East and West Canada (conveniently ignoring the realities articulated by your comment). Perhaps the parent comment is vaguely aware of incidents like this and is extrapolating to unfounded conclusions?

> before giving up and flying away.

Careful! That's not always a given!

As much as I would love this to happen, a high-speed rail network has been discussed along this corridor for decades at both federal and provincial governments, with no tangible actions to making it actually happen. Given the current Prime Minister is on his way out, and the party likely to follow (barring some large swing in the polls), this is unlikely to go anywhere. I'd love to be wrong though.

If your concern is editorial preference, then wouldn't a social media application explicitly controlled by a State apparatus be a concern?

I fail to see how anything going on at Twitter is relevant to what I mentioned. Does Twitter shifting its content priorities somehow make the plethora of excellence sources unavailable?

> The ideal world order isn't the one where Chinese can't find out what happened on Tiananmen square and Americans can't find out what happened in Gaza.

I don't see how this law banning a social media site brings us at all closer to a world where Americans cannot get access to accurate information about major global conflicts. This is so far down the imagined "slippery slope" as to be absurd. In fact, I'd strongly argue that this law would achieve the opposite. If you're relying on Tik Tok for accurate information like this, then you are opening yourself to echo chambers, biased takes, and outright propaganda. There are many excellent sources out there in America freely available and easily accessible.

Escape into the woods for at least 1 week out of the year with no internet connection. It rekindles my love for reading, and helps keep that fire burning throughout the year.

There used to be a TV channel back in the cable days for this, so this sort of thing is hardly new. It's excellent ambiance for your Christmas party.

It's been a while since I've read the book / seen the movie, but I believe the ship intercepted a resupply payload launched from earth as it was performing it's slingshot.

The 2D model alone maybe be sufficient for OPs needs, but I'd advocate for going at least a little further with some form of 3D model. The wing tip effects are significant enough to warrant some form of "next step" after the initial 2D analysis. Although simple algebraic relationships are likely good enough to satisfy this end.

However, the 3D tools above give you a little bit more, that I feel warrant their consideration by the op. These models can yield performance of wing-tail-body configurations that include wake effects. They also can give stability analysis in both longitudinal/lateral axes. The stability effects being especially important if OP wants to design a flying-wing, which are a tad more challenging to get right than just slapping a "good-enough" sized tail on a classic config plane.

Using a computational fluids model like OpenFOAM is overkill for reasonable estimates of aerodynamic performance and stability, provided you stick to normal-ish designs. The term you want to Google is "vortex lattice" and/or "potential flow" solvers, of which there are many open source softwares available specifically geared towards typical aircraft configurations, with simple, easy to use interfaces.

Some good ones to look at to get started with nice guis

- VSP Aero

- XFOIL (for 2D airfoil analysis only, also generates inputs for 3D VLM solvers)

- AVL

And some others if you want perhaps a little higher fidelity, and don't mind text/code interfaces:

-FreeWake

- Datcom (not technically a potential flow models, but a database)

To get the most value out of these softwares, you will need some background in aeronautics. You need to have an understanding of what a potential flow models can and cannot accurately model. It also helps to have knowledge about what forms aircraft stability/control and performance data is typically communicated in, as these softwares will use that terminology.

Cool stuff for sure! But cheeky comments like this (and others I personally have made in this thread) are to do with the "AI" branding aspect of a thing that is just bog standard mechanical engineering work. Hooking up optimizers to simulation work is far from new. But that's being called "AI" now to drive news article clicks (and presumably to fish for investor capital).

The definition of AI changes depending on what I am trying to sell you today.

Probably some sort of optimization algorithm that's been defined for centuries, and comes standard with any mathematical computing tool. The kind of thing used every day by engineers as routine, but I guess that's "AI" now.

> import scipy.optimize

Look ma! I made an AI!

This is phenomenal! As an avid bike packer, I've always wanted this. Eagerly awaiting the expansion to North America. Please don't forget about Canada when building ;)

> Planes are obsolete technologies, should have invested in drones/loitering munitions. In 10 years, its all going to be drones.

This is speculation on what the future will be, not our current reality. In the War in Ukraine, reliance on cheap drones has more to do neither sides ability to achieve air superiority due to AA systems. Introduce stealth and/or effective SEAD tactics (suppression of enemy air defense) into that mix, and the situation changes very quickly. For a recent example, see the Israeli strikes on Iranian air defense systems.

The future is more likely to be hybrid, where drones, and "loyal wingman" data-linked with manned systems are used to get the best of both worlds. The F35's sensor suite and data-link capability are designed for that.

Just my two cents, but I think the appropriate compromise with highly addictive activities that we know can be harmful is to pass regulation surrounding advertisement/marketing. Particularly on advertisement/marketing to children. That way we allow freedom of choice while also assisting those who are more vulnerable to addiction.

I do not think it's appropriate to be constantly bombarded with ads for gambling when attempting to participate in sports culture. As of right now, it is unavoidable, whether watching on TV, going to the stadium, at the stadium, listening to sports commentary, or in the wider fan ecosystem (podcasts, YouTube, etc).

You can do this with your own salary through a 401k in the US or an RRSP in Canada.

Lightweight enough to be recovered via parachute system, unlike the big heavy boosters which need thrust!

The codebase does pretty much exactly that, yes. Still causes the occasional hiccup though when new data is inevitably not labelled appropriately.

Not exactly the kind of thing that causes catastrophic failure. More so the kind of thing that periodically pops up to be annoying.

Time aligning GPS data with other sensors/systems that record in UTC. I'm combining data from multiple different sources together that I do not control. The duration of the data is long enough that an occasional leap second slips in and offsets things.

The "A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry" blog (frequently posted on HackerNews) has an interesting series on how non-state societies organize to achieve collective action, like raising an army. The series focuses on the Celtic people in contrast to the Romans.

I do find it quite interesting how this particular implementation of an agrarian non-state society has very different outcomes than typically envisioned by anarchist theorists, particularly in regards to power/wealth/influence concentration, the emergence of social hierarchy, warlords, and the poor living conditions experienced by those at the bottom.

https://acoup.blog/2024/06/07/collections-how-to-raise-a-tri...

Leap seconds are a problem because I have to deal with existing systems that use leap seconds and those that do not. Getting those systems in sync can be pain sometimes because of conversion from one format to another. Is it insurmountable? No. Is it annoying? Yes. Does it occasionally cause bugs that waste time and resources? Absolutely.

I'd love to snap my fingers and make everyone use TAI, but unfortunately I'm stuck with UTC, GPS and TAI depending on sources.

At the top level of any sport, the expense comes from the coaching, exercise science, travel and other support over the course of years. That's true whether the game is cycling, or football. A $20,000 bike is peanuts in comparison to this cost. Unless you are at the top 0.001 percent of cyclists, better/more training has a much bigger impact than gear. $1,000 gets you a competitive road bike that you can win your local races with. Even cheaper if you buy used.

> From what I read about China, they're constantly scouting primary schools for Olympic talent, so you can come from any background and reach the top in a sport that would be limited to wealthier people in other countries.

This is what wealthy countries do as well. Most wealthy nations have programs to identify and develop top-level athletes. An obvious example being the very lucrative scholarships offered at American universities.

Just being batted around by turbulence looks different if you know what you're looking for (although what to look for might be only obvious when looking at accelerometer data). Again, Dutch Roll is a very specific phenomenon as a result of coupling between the roll and yaw dynamic modes. The risk of Dutch Roll is that these oscillations can grow even without further stimulus rather than just dampen out.

Dutch Roll is a coupling of yawing and rolling dynamic modes, and is a product of the aircraft's aerodynamics. If the aircraft is disturbed off a steady-state path either by control input, changing winds, or turbulence, then it should return back to it's steady-state path with oscillations that quickly dampen. Dutch Roll is a phenomenon where these oscillations grow rather than dampen as a result of out-of-phase yaw and roll modes.

So Dutch Roll can be triggered by turbulence/wind, but the Dutch Roll itself is the result of something going wrong in reaction to that stimulus. This is different than the aircraft just being batted around by turbulence.

Tha name is believed to be borrowed from an ice skating term:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_roll

https://www.iceskatesmuseum.com/e-disc-schoon.htm

It is sad, and there are certainly areas where injuries and deaths will continue for decades to come. However I feel the need to point out that the First World War is on a whole other level of scale than the Ukraine War. As per the article , approximately 60 million shells were fired at the battle of Verdun. That's just one spot on the front over the course of about one year. In Ukraine, Russia's recent ramp-up of shell production is allowing for about 10,000 shells per day ( 3.65 million per year) across the entire front. Assuming that pace is maintained, that's about 16x less than was fired at a single spot on the front in WW1.

I write this comment not to diminish the very real suffering caused by the current war, but as reminder of the destructive capacity of a full-scale industrial war, where the entire state is devoted to producing the means of war.

> but a dog will never produce a non-dog, and a fish will never produce a non-fish. This requirement of microbe-to-man evolution contradicts the fundamental law of heredity.

Agreed! And doing so would of course invalidate our current understanding of how evolution works! We'd have to throw out our theory of evolution by natural selection if we ever observed a dog give birth to a non-dog!

The definition of a "species" isn't something defined by nature. Rather it's a construct that humans invented in our need to categorize things. Genetic dissimilarities one generation to the next are of course very very small. So small that adjacent members will always be of the same "species" (able to breed with each other). But cumulative changes over generations add up. So much so that if we skipped ahead many generations, we'd no longer have compatible breeding. Different "species" as we would say under our admittedly flawed categorization system. At what point in the family tree does the species change? Given that each species can breed with its adjacents? At what point does a color gradient stop being red and start being blue? As you can see, the flaw in this understanding stems only from holding onto the definition of distinct "species" as something real rather than a human creation. A useful one, don't get me wrong! But it's important to understand the fuzziness of this definition. Your argument stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of this idea.

By the way, the example above is not merely hypothetical, since species can be separated in space as well as time. We can observe this phenomenon in action through very fascinating phenomenon like "ring species".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Really cool stuff! I'd highly recommend learning about it.

The evidence that you claim is missing for genetic mutations increasing complexity over long-time frames is simply not supported by the wealth of evidence from multi different disciplines. I'm sure Dr. John Sanford is quite persuasive, but the words of one individual do not refute the decades and centuries of evidence that dispute this.

It is indeed thought terminating to continue to hold a belief if it is not supported by evidence. The idea that organisms were formed more or less as they are, and that natural selection is only capable of minor adjustments is something that is empirically testable by observing genetic lineage, and the fossil record. But the hypothesis fails under the weight of our observations. It does really appear that organisms have a direct lineage all the way back to the most primitive forms of life. In light of this, we must reject the hypothesis and accept what the evidence tells us. To do otherwise is allow dogma to cloud our judgement.

I know I said this already, but I'd like to repeat my opinion on the intersection between religion and science: I do not believe that the creator of the universe would want us to reject the tools that they have given us to understand their universe. To do so would be to dismiss and condescend their achievement. So why do you choose to do this with evolution? Despite it being one of the most well-supported scientific theories we have? As you mentioned, you accept natural selection, so clearly you accept aspects of the theory despite it contradicting your theology. I'm sure your beliefs contradict your theology all the time across many aspects of your life. Surely you accept that a text from the bronze-age written by fallible humans and influenced by the ideas of the very specific culture that produced it is not literally 100% true?