I don't understand this, why would you want people to test something that's already predefined? You could automate that.
You want real users that will use the app for real things. Blind testing from a list seems kind of pointless.
The goal is to detect usability issues. Your features should have user stories associated to them, come up with few scenarios around these (e.g. book a flight, cancel your flight from the landing page...). Then test your scenarios with multiple users/personas.
This will allow you to detect UX/usabilities issues, and prioritize update based on how critical the issue is.
Probably the safest field to get into would be everyday things, especially plumbing. There's no automating that, pipes will always break and new (and old) buildings will always need to manage complex plumbing systems.
I wouldn't be surprised if some black swan breakthrough in automated assembly/modularization/mobility of housing in less than 30 years halves the availability of manual plumbing work so that when your children just get 1 to 10 years into that career there is a sudden plummet of pay, possibly combined with an influx of workers coming in from previously wrecked markets.
What would the effects be of releasing nuclear waste in space? Could we sent up all of our nuclear waste, put a rocket on it and just let it disappear into the distance?
I think the drawback for space disposal is the risk of rocket failure. If a rocket explodes with nuclear waste on board, the waste would spread over a large area. It's safer at the moment to consolidate nuclear waste in small areas away from civilization.
Think what the argument against it is that the rocket explodes during launch, before actually leaving earth behind. Then it would most probably be noticeable.
In the 1950s they thought that Nevada was very big and that the waste wouldn't even be noticeable.
They also thought the Pacific Ocean was very big and that the waste wouldn't even be noticeable.
Car drivers still think this way with their toxic emissions. It is very human to think 'out of sight out of mind' rather than 'take only photos, leave only footprints', so maybe it is actually fine to trash space with waste.
This... isn't really relevant for space. The amount of emptiness so massively outweighs the quantity of matter and energy it would be literally impossible to utilize a nontrivial portion of the volume available.
The only case in which releasing waste into space is problematic is when it's within a highly-utilized area, for example LEO. In the future, we may potentially use various transfer orbits and/or the Interplanetary Transport Network [1], so we should presumably avoid dumping there, but even within the solar system, the sheer volume of vacuum dwarfs any possible use.
You would need a huge fleet of huge rockets to do that. Of the order of 50 Saturn V - sized rockets per year just to keep up with the current production of nuclear waste. And about 1000 of them to get rid of what we accumulated so far. Only 13 Saturn V’s have ever been launched.
NASA and the DOE did a study on this and they determined that it was too expensive to do it, though safe enough but that we might want the waste later. Vitrification and storage was deemed cheaper, safer and more 'reversible'.
I think that's just short term thinking: When the sun expands into a red giant, the gas drag will slow down the moon. I think that means it will crash into the earth if it's not removed before.
Regardless of whether or not what you say is likely to happen (I think not, but anyways), if humans can even last long enough to see the Sun as a red giant, we'll have larger problems on our hands. In any case, we'll likely have destroyed ourselves or evolved into something else by that time.
The Moon orbits the Sun, and is only mildly perturbed by the Earth. Gas drag would decay the Moon's orbit, but it's not at all clear to me it would crash into the Earth. It seems far more likely it would simply fall into the Sun.
The Earth and Moon system orbit the Sun, but the Moon is very much in orbit around the Earth.
A more likely scenario is that the Earth's orbit will move outwards as the Sun expands, since stars in the red giant phase(s) lose a lot of mass. It's plausible that the Earth/Moon will not be destroyed, physically. But in that case all life would have been obliterated due to the immense temperatures associated with having the surface of the Sun within a few million miles (or less) of Earth.
I've frequently noted that it takes longer for me to drink a Pepsi, if I even finish it at all. The initial taste, especially while eating, is more pleasant with Pepsi than it is with Coke, but the amount of Coke I can drink comfortably is higher than with Pepsi.
I think you'll just find enjoyment in other non-descriptive genres, that I would likely not enjoy. Personally I can practically see the things I read, and it's colored my reading so much that I almost get bored reading stuff that's not as descriptive. I also theorise that this is the reason I usually dislike movie adaptions - it doesn't fit with the "movie" my brain created.
Wasn't it WhatsApp that sent a key back to Facebook servers? Technically it's end-to-end encrypted, but Facebook could decrypt it if they really wanted to.
