FourHand451

You can buy "skylights" that are essentially internally mirrored tubes that accomplish essentially the same thing. I don't believe they're super cheap right now, but I imagine they could be if they became more widely used.

I know someone who installed one in their bathroom and have been surprised at how well it works.

I think that's a good idea in theory, but it still relies on the car knowing when it's looking at a solid object with 100% accuracy.

I couldn't help but hear this in my head in the voice of Montgomery Burns.

It's been a while since I've rented, but I assume this is covered in the agreement when you make a booking. I'd guess their butts are covered from the fraud perspective. Maybe misleading advertisement though?

Could you say more?

How many places in a densely populated city can you precisely drop a bomb with no risk to civilians? Yes, technology has improved, but my point is that better tech doesn't just automatically make war less awful.

I don't believe the people operating the weapons are different in ways that make civilian casualties obsolete. In WW2 it was a decision to bomb population centers, not an accident. That decision can be made today too.

That would be great, but why would one think that?

Their government programs have hit some snags recently too. The KC-46 and Starliner programs have not exactly been smooth money-makers for them.

I think you may be slightly misinterpreting the parent comment. When they say the NIF's task is weapons research, I think they meant that the facility was built with that task in mind. When I read your comment it sounds more like you're talking about the current task of the people working there.

Both valid points of discussion, but different ones.

What exactly do you mean?

Is there a reason you feel they are less prepared than any other organization?

The practices you're describing largely seem sensible, but I think they are also beside the point made by the article, namely that Texas seems to emit more gas per unit of production than a neighbor.

> gas doesn't have a ton of value in the Permian basin.

You note this, but the assertion that selling or using the gas to run generators are top preferences for producers seems contradictory, or perhaps a bit oversimplified.

If gas is abundant and has little value, I would expect there would also be little incentive to sell it when it isn't trivially easy to do so, or to store it for later use running compressors or generators. Cheap gas would mean venting or flaring are the least expensive option in more situations.

So, perhaps a good time to start a new business selling inexpensive RISC-V based micro computers?