In addition to jamming the radio signals directly, Starlink terminals use GPS, so jamming GPS can hurt connectivity. Iran has been jamming GPS in an effort to reduce the effectiveness of foreign military attacks, but maybe they've stepped it up a notch in the past week. People in Ukraine are probably so accustomed to GPS jamming that they've all gone to Advanced -> Debug Data -> "Use Starlink positioning exclusively".
Ukraine has one other advantage: The jamming tends to come from one direction. If you set up a barrier on that side of the antenna, the signal from the satellites is less likely to be drowned out. People in Iran have no idea where the jammers are in related to themselves. If they're in a city, they might be surrounded.
Starlink terminals also require a clear view of the sky and they broadcast on certain frequencies, so it's quite possible for governments to find the terminals and confiscate/destroy them. Still, it's a lot more difficult to shut down than a few fiber optic lines.
> Starlink terminals also require a clear view of the sky and they broadcast on certain frequencies
That's not quite true. You can conceal the terminal using a number of materials that won't significantly interfere with the signal like a thin piece of cloth or a thin plastic bag (like a garbage bag) as long as the cover doesn't get too wet.
Also GM had to replace batteries in 142,000 Chevy Bolts & Volts due to fire risk, so I'm not sure that should count as an example of a successful use of non-cylindrical, non-LFP batteries.
Which cell technology to use depends on the application. Tesla actually uses BYD blade batteries in some of their vehicles sold in Europe. The main issue with prismatic cells is that to be safe, they must be made with LFP chemistry, which hurts energy density. LFP is also worse at charging/discharging when cold, though battery management software mostly solves that.
Cylindrical cells make sense for higher performance NMC and NCA chemistries, as they can be cooled more easily (coolant lines can run in the voids between cylindrical cells), and any single cell failure is less likely to cascade to other cells. Batteries with cylindrical cells were easier to repair, but nowadays cells are welded together instead of bolted, so that's no longer an advantage.
> The main issue with prismatic cells is that to be safe, they must be made with LFP chemistry, which hurts energy density
This is obviously untrue. Tons of other chemistries have used prismatic cells with good safety as well. You think Macbooks and iPhones use LFP or cylinder cells?
> Batteries with cylindrical cells were easier to repair,
It can be just as easy to repair a prismatic battery as a cylinder battery. It all comes down to the layout of the battery. And as you mentioned, how the battery is constructed, if the battery is structural, etc.
Since this is a discussion about electric vehicles, I thought it could go without saying that I was talking about batteries in such vehicles, not batteries in consumer electronics that are 1,000 times smaller.
To use an analogy: If someone stores a gallon of gasoline in a single-walled plastic container, that's probably OK. But storing 1,000 gallons of gasoline without certain safety measures is unsafe. So it goes with battery capacities.
My point was about cylindrical cells with higher energy chemistries like NMC and NCA. Rivian uses cylindrical cells for their non-LFP batteries. Lucid uses 2170 cells. As far as I can tell, those three (Tesla, Rivian, Lucid) are the only US car manufacturers who have not had battery recalls due to fire risk.
GM, Hyundai, and Nissan all used pouch cells with higher energy density chemistries, and had recalls due to battery fire risks. Ford also recalled tens of thousands of their plug in hybrids due to battery fire risks, though they haven't found a solution yet beyond limiting the max charge of the battery. These batteries are also NMC pouch cells.
I'm sure it's physically possible to make safe, reliable pouch or prismatic cells using higher energy chemistries, but so far it has been risky for those who have tried.
But it still is untrue even in the discussion of electric vehicles. Tons of EVs have been made safely with chemistries other than LFP with prismatic cells. In fact most non-LFP EV batteries are pouch or prismatic, not cylinder.
You are comparing a stock to a flow. Billionares in the US don't make $7 trillion per year. They accumulated that wealth over their lifetimes. If you want to compare apples to apples: The net worth of the US (as much as that concept can make sense) is around $176 trillion. That includes $269 trillion in assets and $123 trillion in debts.
I doubt there is any form of ABS filament with such a low glass transition temperature. As the original poster said, it was probably PLA.
I find it odd that the report didn't name the manufacturer of the part, and that the part was not listed on the LAA modification form. There can't be many people selling such parts at airshows, so you'd think the investigators would have been able to find out who made it.
Now I wonder if the previous owner (who installed the new fuel system) printed the part himself, then claimed he bought it overseas to avoid blame.
That truck carries 500 packages. That drone one or two at best so to replace one truck you're looking at 100's of flights + return flights. And I'm not convinced the risks are lower.
Trucks also don't sound like a swarm of angry bees, in fact the all-electric fleet that Amazon uses around here barely sounds like anything at all. Drones would be a huge step backwards for noise pollution.
A truck travels a greater distance to deliver those 500 packages to the same locations, as it must take roads instead of flying in a straight line. And roads are much more likely to have people on them than a random patch of ground. Also the truck weighs several tons. The weight requires more energy to move stuff around, and has more kinetic energy than an 80lb drone.
You should really consider how much energy it takes to levitate an 80lb drone while flying across town, compared to how much energy it takes to roll an 8000lb van across town (even ignoring the fact that the van might deliver 100 packages while making it's way across town).
An 8,000lb van will be using fossil fuels and emit particulates from tire and brake dust. Unless it was incredibly efficient and electricity for the drones was coming from coal plants, the van would emit more pollution.
But the biggest harm is people getting hit by vehicles. Delivery drones are much smaller and don't spend nearly as much time near people. Since drones can deliver stuff more quickly than large vans, they also substitute for individuals driving to a store to pick something up. So the total risk to pedestrians is even less than you might expect from eliminating many van deliveries.
I'm not so sure that the numbers will bear out what you sketch here. If we assume a drone flight per package and we scale this up to get rid of all of the delivery vehicles the number of people hit by and killed by drones will rise substantially. Drones are immature tech at best and a 5 Kg drone will put you in the morgue on impact with a greater likelihood than an accident with a delivery van. Gravity has no brakes and a drone isn't going to be able to refuse its imperative when the tech inevitably fails. I think you have to watch out not to be so 'anti' one thing that you end up with another that is as bad or even worse. Maybe the solution isn't drones and not delivery vans either.
Considering the distance from one delivery to the next in a van is short, and the warehouse to town distance is split via a hundred packages, it just has to be the electric van.
Maybe things will make more sense if the drone can carry 20 lightweight packages. But even then you gotta wonder how much energy it takes to hover/fight gravity the entirety of the trip.
The semi truck isn't driving through my backyard recording video of me. And I doubt the economics of scale make the truck more environmentally damaging than a drone delivering a single item
It's almost as if .. if noise, property damage, enviro damage, injury and death.. are the problems, then we should regulate everything that do those things equally rather than trying to pick winners among various transport modes. But among other things, this would mean holding people responsible for the incredible damage anyone can do with a car and the people will not stand for being told they cannot go vroom vroom. Additionally since we refuse to regulate until there is a crisis, anything that is new automatically has an advantage over anything that is old, regardless of which causes fewer issues per unit of work (package delivery etc).
"I don't want a noisy neighborhood, but I want to drive my two-ton death trap that you can't see toddlers in front of and I also don't want to see any of my neighbors and also I want any object in the world deliverable within 24 hours."
I chuckled when I read this post. It is well written sarcasm. I will say observing some if the "individual driver vs. X wars" on HN (usually between North Americans), there are many who think this way.
>"I don't want a noisy neighborhood, but I want to drive my two-ton death trap that you can't see toddlers in front of and I also don't want to see any of my neighbors and also I want any object in the world deliverable within 24 hours."
I live in a noisy neighborhood with commercial truck thru traffic.
I don't have any particular love for the noise or the trucks, but the kind of people who complain about noise and machines will mostly don't select to live here which is good because I find those people to be bad generally.
The post doesn't link to the report itself. It looks like you can only read a summary of it for free and must pay 5.90 to download a copy.[1] From what I can glean from reading TUV's summary, it seems like the Teslas had significantly higher mileage than other vehicles (>50,000km in 2-3 years). Also their failures were mostly in brake discs and rear axle issues, which makes me think that due to regenerative braking, the discs were rusty from disuse. The rear axle issue they mention is probably a clicking noise caused by under-torqued rear halfshaft nuts.[2] Tesla updated their torque values last year[3], so this shouldn't be a problem anymore. Any older vehicle that has the click can be fixed by re-lubricating the hub and torquing the nut to the new value.
Without paying for the report, we can only speculate as to what TUV considers a serious defect. If the rates are as high as claimed (17% Model Y, 13% Model 3), then the issues are most likely minor things such as rusty brakes or rear axle clicking. Rusty brakes are less than ideal, but they're common on EVs and they work just fine. The fix is to simply use the brakes occasionally. If anything it's an indication that the vehicle requires less maintenance because the brake pads won't need replacement as frequently.
As a Ford Fusion Hybrid owner I blow out my rear brakes a lot more often out of rust and lack of use due to regen too, so the TUV is just calling out people not getting their vehicles inspected and serviced as regularly as they should.
In other words... Tesla owners just don't pay attention to service intervals as dedicated and surefast as a VW owner would.
Can cobfirm, I’ve been driving a Model 3 for 6ish years and the brakes have problems from disuse pretty regularly. It’s annoying but not critical. Other than that it has been shockingly reliable. This matches my experience.
Your pediatrician is either mistaken or lying. Children and adolescents who take SSRIs for major depressive disorder show increased rates of suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, and hostility towards others. These effects persist for at least 9 months after starting SSRIs.[1]
Common side effects of long-term SSRI use in adults include weight gain, emotional numbing, loss of libido, and sexual dysfunction. It seems to me that anyone taking SSRIs when their brain is still developing would be more likely to have these side effects, and to have them persist after ceasing use.
It's anecdotal, but I know some people who were prescribed SSRIs during puberty. It's not possible to know how they would have turned out if they hadn't taken these drugs, but as adults I pity them. Their lack of sex drive causes relationship problems, which is especially sad since they do want children. They're starting to get older, so I doubt it'll ever happen.
I thought we were talking about long-term effects, i.e. ones that persist to and through adulthood? The sources in that Wiki article appear not to address that.
The clinicians I've interacted with have always warned me of the possible side-effects of psychotropic medications, and said they should be notify immediately if the side-effects appear. I believe this is at least standard procedure, if not legally required?
I do have a low libido. Can't say whether or not that's due to Prozac, but regardless it hasn't negatively affected my life, probably because it was low before I met my wife. If someone enters a relationship while their libido is at one level and then during the relationship it changes considerably then I can certainly see how that could be a major challenge. That's an important thing to weigh when evaluating medication.
In addition to the increased rates of suicidal behavior and aggression in children (which we know lasts for at least 9 months, but don't know if it's longer because the study only ran for that long), the Wikipedia article talks about long term effects in adults, at least one of which you have. Why should it be less likely for children to end up with these same issues?
You are asking for evidence that does not exist because nobody has done good studies on it. That's too high of a bar. There are many drugs and life interventions that we don't have studies on regarding children, but that doesn't mean those things are safe for children. To use an example so ridiculous that we can both agree on it: There are no studies showing long term effects of fentanyl on children. Yet if some parent managed to get a fentanyl prescription for their kid, I think we would both be concerned.
Obviously I'm not implying that giving a child Prozac is as harmful as fentanyl. I'm saying that your line of reasoning proves too much. If someone did get their kid on a dangerous drug, and defended their decision by pointing out that there are no studies on children showing its long term harm, there is nothing you can say to that parent that others in this thread haven't already said to you. That should give you pause.
I believe Raptor 2 operates at a lower chamber pressure. According to Wikipedia, Raptor 3 is 350 bar, and its thrust to weight ratio is 183.6:1.
BE-4's chamber pressure is low for its design, but it would be very difficult to increase it to Raptor's levels. Full-flow staged combustion causes the propellants to be gasses when they enter the combustion chamber, and chemical reactions in gasses happen more quickly, allowing for efficient combustion in a smaller combustion chamber. The smaller volume makes it easier to contain higher pressures.
1) epigenetic inheritance is just if a horse stretches its neck to reach up high, so to do that horses children and their children, and so on, until you end up with a giraffe
2) yes methylation and epigenetics resets, not so much at meiosis as at conception zygote formation
3) it doesn't 100% reset more like 98.3% resets, the remainder does NOT reset, thus, epigenetic inheritance. Sometimes that reset process fails, thusly, (epi)genetic disease. Also all this process called "imprinting" is why it was hard to clone various organisms including until recently humans - you can "reset" a skin cell 100% but that's not the ticket, you need to reset it 98.3% and leave the imprinting regions. Oh. And the specific imprinting regions are different for the chromosome that come from mom, vs, the chromosome come from dad
So the big takeaway is that DNA no longer is the main mechanism of inheritance as Darwin taught but actually epigenetic, and the basis is along the lines of horses stretching their necks and becoming giraffes. There's a lot of getting into the weeds as to how this all works molecularly is that's it's really complicated but it is inherited
Ukraine has one other advantage: The jamming tends to come from one direction. If you set up a barrier on that side of the antenna, the signal from the satellites is less likely to be drowned out. People in Iran have no idea where the jammers are in related to themselves. If they're in a city, they might be surrounded.
Starlink terminals also require a clear view of the sky and they broadcast on certain frequencies, so it's quite possible for governments to find the terminals and confiscate/destroy them. Still, it's a lot more difficult to shut down than a few fiber optic lines.
reply