helpfulTroll
It’s like the difference between text rendering versus decompressing JPEG images. Both can pile up enough data to exhibit lag, but you get more bang for your buck with the lighter data stream.
You'd have to scour a big chunk of the solar system.
No, bombarding regular water with neutrons from fission reactions will produce heavy water.The physical dimensions of the Tsar Bomba are on the wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
If 2 million are needed, then that's 100 cubed, twice. So two cubes of this bomb, with each cube measuring 100 units per edge, filled solid. The bomb is already designed, so producing 2 million of them would be a matter of setting up an assembly line, and churnning them out like automobiles, once the raw materials are procured.
Each one is about the size of a car, so a parking garage that holds 2 million cars is an okay frame of reference. Most stadiums have parking lots that hold 10,000 spaces, so 100 stadiums, across one hundred cities, but all together in one place. Realistically, though, two million cars easily fit inside any large city.
As for the gaseous concentration of fusion gas in the ocean, that's a much tougher problem to tackle. Really, because the huge fusion bombs that use deuterium (and tritium) are sourcing that material from the oceans (or other bodies of water). Culling deuterium from natural water sources is among the easier ways to produce weaponizable amounts of the gas. So, in order to create twenty times the natural standing concentration would require synthesizing your own new, man-made deuterium from the normal variety of hydrogen, by irradiating non-heavy water.
For every million gallons of ocean water, you can pull out maybe 156 gallons of heavy water, so you'd get about six hundred trillion gallons of heavy water, if you could capture all of the natural heavy water in the world. Take 600 trillion gallons, and multiply it by twenty. Bingo, you're there. That's the ignitable concentration, if you had 2 million Tsar Bombas.
- You can't take lightning headphones
and use them as headphones in all
lightning ports.
- You can't take lightning headphones
and use them on any other Apple
product other then modern, premium
iPhones.
- It doesn't enable compatibility with
other new Apple products. In fact, it
hinders compatibility with USB-C ports
in newer Apple laptops. *What?*
- If Apple went all-in on USB-C with
laptops, the lightning port on new
iPhones feels like either an anachronism
or accentuates the lock-in attempt.
- Bluetooth really isn't very good, not
at a level that guarantees perfect,
continuous audio streams. It's not
an ideal step up from a good, durable wire.
- Air pods and other headphone upgrades
are double disposable, in that, not only
are they particularly expensive options,
but easily lost, stolen or destroyed.
Laundry and drop hazards, above and beyond
theft, basically add constant anxiety to
the total cost of ownership for air pods
in particular.
- General inconvenience of replacement
forces odd work-around strategies for
times when you can't find your headphones.
If you're running late, and you lost them
in the couch cushions or under the bed,
what are your options?
I can think of a number of additional diminishingly valuable what-ifs, but you get the point. Life always turns out better with the widely adopted standardized options, since headphones take on the primary expendable accessory, and the alternatives are hemmed in, such that they're always worse.But now what? It's just going to be this irritating thing, until an excuse lets Apple back down while saving face.
Whatever.
Or something like that.