(a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
The fact that the pagers were obtained by Hezbollah to be used for their communications, and consequently could be expected to be exclusively in the possession of combatants means the attack was not indiscriminate.
Causing collateral damage does not make an attack indiscriminate. The standard for permissible collateral damage is that an attack must not cause loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian property, etc. that is excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage [1].
The fact that it was so specifically targeted, combined with the small size of the explosive charges means collateral damage could be expected to be minor. And the evidence so far suggests that to have been accurate. The death of a single child is tragic, but negligible in comparison to the military advantage gained by thousands of combatants dead or wounded.
Where in aforementioned international humanitarian law, step (c), is it preordained that one child's collateral death is negligible? See, therein lies the crux of the issue. The definition itself is wise enough that you can't just lawyerese your way through the issue.
In your scientistic rationalization using weaselwords like "expected to be exclusive", "the [subjective] standard for permissible..", "a death is [objectively] negligible", and so on, it is rather the case that your explanation is so laden with prejudiced pseudoreasoning that you are blind to it and unwittingly helping to spread ideological misinformation.
It's funny, everyone on Hacker News at least completed high school in principle. But there's so much brave conservatism that high school education should have infused students with enough critical thinking to make them think about what they're really saying, regardless of how complex or simple their version of words is.
You use radiation for cooling in space. That obeys the Stefan-Boltzmann law with power scaling with T^4 (so you want the radiators as hot as possible). You can use passive elements, like heat-pipes to move heat to the radiators, but active elements like pumps for forced convection could make sense; and most importantly heat pumps are an active element that can boost the temperature of the radiators vs the thing you're keeping cool (thereby increasing the heat rejection capacity of a given radiator size).
I tried this, and while I didn't have any difficulty establishing a stereoscopic view it didn't jump out for me at all. I perceived the blue line floating on top of the problem handhold, but the handhold seemed to be on the same plane as all the others. Knowing it was the problem one, I could use the stereoscopic view to see it, but without already knowing I don't think it would be apparent.
This is odd to me since I've successfully used stereoscopy in the past to find small differences. For some reason, with this image, rather than causing a change in perceived z-level, my eyes fight for dominance and my left ends up winning.
It took me a little while, because that blue line is definitely a distraction. But once the other holds all settled down to being properly in the plane and sharply focused, and I ignored the blue line, the misplaced one was clearly above the plane.
I'm pretty sure I saw it mentioned that if the source and destination are Starlink dishes then packets will be routed by the satellites directly to the destination dish without going through any ground stations.
That means Starlink can, in fact, guarantee communications during outages (so long as the Starlink network itself isn't down). You just need to have Starlink service at both the send and receive sides and the communication effectively acts as a direct link.
Nitrogen is narcotic at higher partial pressures. This is something they teach during SCUBA diving training: If your dive buddy starts acting loopy when you get around 100ft deep, it's time to go up.
> It is caused by the anesthetic effect of certain gases at high partial pressure... Narcosis produces a state similar to drunkenness (alcohol intoxication), or nitrous oxide inhalation.
> Except for helium and probably neon, all gases that can be breathed have a narcotic effect, although widely varying in degree. The effect is consistently greater for gases with a higher lipid solubility, and although the mechanism of this phenomenon is still not fully clear, there is good evidence that the two properties are mechanistically related.
You can get into the weeds of the detailed costings, safety, etc, but I think the clearest argument is this:
> The problem with beaming power using microwaves is that the monetizable value per Watt is incredibly low, because essentially unmetered electricity comes out of the walls of every building. The trick is to increase the value per Watt, by increasing the value and decreasing the power. The value is increased by modulating the microwaves with high speed data, and the power can be reduced by a factor of a million or so without hurting this method. Indeed, customers pay only for the data, and not for the transmitted electrical power, which is pathetically low at the receiver. Communications satellites remain the killer app for the commercial space industry
And then you look at the fact that almost every satellite communications company has gone bankrupt at some point. SpaceX with Starlink being a notable exception, but OneWeb which superficially looks pretty similar has already gone bankrupt once. If communications, which is many more orders of magnitude more valuable than power, is not enough to stave off bankruptcy, then there is no possibility of beamed power being economical without a commensurate improvement in the efficiency of space launch. And that's just a baseline as a necessary condition, not actually a sufficient condition for it to be a sensible business.
> In contrast, the Quine definition of ordered pairs, defined in definition df-op, is type level. That is, <. x , y >. has the same type as x and y
How is that not a problem? The type of a set needs to be higher than its elements to prevent the construction of a set containing itself. If a tuple is the same type as an elements, then can't you construct a tuple that contains itself as its first element, i.e. "x.0 = x" is a stratified formula so x exists.
The Quine pair works in ordinary set theory (Zermelo or ZFC); it has a mildly baroque definition but there is no problem with it. Look at the machinery and you will see why a pair (as opposed to a general set) doesnt strictly speaking need to be of higher type than its components.
Very dubious. Unfortunately there isn't a paper, this is being presented at a conference, so it's difficult to critique it.
There was a similar study though published back in 2022: "Meal Skipping and Shorter Meal Intervals Are Associated with Increased Risk of All-Cause and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality among US Adults" [0].
The problem with that study is easily found in the results section:
> As shown in Table 1, compared with participants with three meals per day, participants eating fewer than three meals per day were more likely to be younger, men, non-Hispanic Black, with less education and lower family income, current smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, higher physical activity levels, lower total energy intake and lower diet quality, food insecure, and higher frequency of snacks.
In other words, if you do an observational study you're going to get a lot of people of poor socioeconomic status with unhealthy habits (e.g. smoking) who skip meals. That's a very different population from an average person who starts intermittent fasting as an intervention. Consequently, the results are useless for showing the causal effect of intermittent fasting.
That is a different study to the one that's linked, but they both seem to share the exact same methodological shortcomings, so I think both can be equally as readily dismissed. For that matter, they're both studies of a cohort of ~20,000 US adults, so they might actually be using the same dataset.
Reminds me of studies showing the early retirement results in earlier death, without accounting for people who had to retire early because of poor health.
This is a good question and you shouldn't have been downvoted for it. I had a similar concern.
I think the answer is this [0]:
> Many fungi are hyperaccumulators, therefore they are able to concentrate toxins in their fruiting bodies for later removal.
And the linked article alludes to that:
> Heavy metals and other toxins are extracted and captured in the mushrooms that grow, while the substrate leftovers, including the mycelium, are compacted and heated to create clean bricks for new construction.
Presumably they validate that the process results in the substrate having an acceptably low level of toxins before using it as material for new construction.
The general pattern with these sorts of things is that it's a combination of temperature and time. For any given microorganism there's some temperature it thrives at, some temperature at which it will start dying and if left for long enough will completely kill it off, and some temperature at which you can be assured that even brief exposure will completely kill it off.
Most microorganisms start dying above 50C (122F) or so. Roughly an hour at 50C should sufficiently pasteurize water for drinking. Or around 15 minutes at 60C and so forth. As the temperature increases the required time decreases. The common advice to boil water to render it safe for drinking is conservative and is given for a number of reasons: to err on the side of caution; because there are extremophiles that can survive at higher temperatures; because water boiling is an easily visible cue; and because by the time water reaches boiling it is sterilized so there's no need to time it (which is something people can screw up).
I found two sources on the temperature resistance of Naegleria fowleri. First the CDC [0] says it grows best at 46C (115F) and survives minutes or hours at 50-65C (122-149F). I also found a paper [1] which showed no detectable Naegleria fowleri after pasteurization at 68C (154F), unfortunately it didn't give a time though.
The upshot of all this is that Naegleria fowleri is somewhat temperature tolerant but isn't an extremophile; it's killed off on a temperature-time scale that's reasonably typical for water-borne pathogens. By the time water reaches 95C (203F) it is 100% dead and probably was already by the time the water reached 70-80C (158-176F).
Indiscriminate attacks are those [0]:
(a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
The fact that the pagers were obtained by Hezbollah to be used for their communications, and consequently could be expected to be exclusively in the possession of combatants means the attack was not indiscriminate.
Causing collateral damage does not make an attack indiscriminate. The standard for permissible collateral damage is that an attack must not cause loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian property, etc. that is excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage [1].
The fact that it was so specifically targeted, combined with the small size of the explosive charges means collateral damage could be expected to be minor. And the evidence so far suggests that to have been accurate. The death of a single child is tragic, but negligible in comparison to the military advantage gained by thousands of combatants dead or wounded.
[0]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12
[1]: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14
reply