After a few years the orbit will degrade enough that it’ll start to fall back to earth. At that point, the satellite will either burn up completely on re-entry, or partially and the rest will fall to earth.
Either way, each of these satellites will be completely gone from orbit after a few years.
ULA is already a private company. I don’t think the US government has done any of their own work to get to space since the shuttle.
Gravity and vacuum are not mutually exclusive - you always have to deal with gravity forces, although they become negligible pretty quickly when you get into and then leave orbits.
As to the specific claim, I suspect that the experiments they are currently doing (in vacuum chambers on earth) have gotten to the point that they are measuring the propulsion system producing more thrust than it’s own weight (T/W >1), which would technically be enough thrust to overcome gravity. Even if it wasn’t practically useful for actually getting to orbit, that amount of thrust on a reactionless motor would be incredible, and would totally unlock the solar system for us.
As the other user commented, instigator is hardly ever actually used.
NHL reffing is… not great most of the time. Despite being a fan of the sport, I would like to see changes that would reduce the future rates of TBI among players. Refs actually enforcing the rules would probably help a bit there.
You seem to misunderstand how the penalties work out. 95% of the time after a fight happens, both teams get offsetting penalties, and so neither team is at a disadvantage because of the fight alone. There are instances where one team ends up with more penalties after a fight, but it’s usually because of something that happened before the fight and prompted the fight (and should’ve been a penalty anyway)
If this actually did lead to faster matrix multiplication, then essentially anything that can be done on a GPU would benefit. That definitely could include games, and physics models, along with a bunch of other applications (and yes, also AI stuff).
I’m sure the papers authors know all of that, but somehow along the line the article just became"faster and better AI"
The above post is referencing/quoting a line from the show “It’s always sunny in Philadelphia”, which is why people up voting it
Why is that weirder? The people writing scientific software are, by and large, less good at writing software than people who only specialize in software development. I’d expect there to tons of terrible engineering practices in an old code base like that
I haven’t actually read the novel version, just seen the movie enough times to know this wasn’t in it and that there was a novel
Probably the novel on which the movie was based.
Those stats are misleading though. Autopilot only runs on highways, which are much safer per mile even for human drivers.
Tesla are basically comparing their system, which only runs in pristine, ideal conditions, against an average human that has to deal with the real world.
As far as I’m aware they haven’t released safety per mile data from the FSD cars yet, and until they do I will remain skeptical about how much safer it currently is.
Yes, but notably you can design to reduce the risk of leaking hydrogen. If the areas around the tanks are designed to allow any leakage to vent before it reaches dangerous levels, you can reduce the risk. Yes hydrogen is flammable, so tanks of it are dangerous. Jet fuel is also quite flammable, and we’ve used that for a long time.
This is all in contrast to the design of the Hindenburg, which was specifically trying to hold onto a bunch of hydrogen in the flammable regime
I’m guessing that they are (falsely) equating it to the hindenburg, when IMO it wouldn’t be much different safety-wise than current fossil fuel powered planes.
It’s not like they would be filling the wings and luggage compartment with free-floating hydrogen, it stays in it’s tank
Well, yes and no.
Quantum computers will likely never beat classical computing on classical algorithms, for exactly the reasons you stated, classical just has too much of a head start.
But there are certain problems with quantum algorithms that are exponentially faster than the classical algorithms. Quantum computers will be better on those problems very quickly, but we are still working on building reliable QCs. Also, we currently don’t know very many quantum algorithms with that degree of speedup, so as others have said there isn’t many use cases for QCs yet.