beerandt

The SAR stuff is crazy good and and scary- the publicly released stuff from drones sort of hit a ceiling in quality over a decade ago. And it seems to be rarely released at all now.

It was good enough then to track individuals movement and 'replay' where they had been over the last few days to figure out where they came from and associate them with other people/ vehicles/ rf signatures.

I think it's safe to assume that the quality kept quietly improving from orbit since then- it's just too good to publicly release / declassify.

Wanting veto power in execution is functionally the same as actively handicapping it, regardless of how implemented.

>If they don't like the contract terms, they can simply not sign a contract and not do business with a company.

How is that not what they're saying here by banning it in the supply chain?

How else do you prevent any dod purchases or contracts from 'having contact' with a software you don't trust?

Coastal erosion =/= sea level rise.

This is textbook expected behavior on a high energy deep water coast (eg cliffs, not mangroves)

If you're preventing the military from doing some action because you disagree with it, that makes you an adversary.

Actively handicapping a product that's otherwise capable qualifies.

Very few people are using a bag to the expected life cycle limit, and even fewer are doing it without WASHING, which is key in doing full LCA (life cycle analysis).

Washing and cleaning are surprisingly inefficient and costly (in terms of $, energy, resources, and emissions) compared to manufacturing, and many assumptions about recycling and reuse go out the window once the realistic numbers descrbing how people actually behave replace idealistic assumptions that go into a manufacturers internal emissions calculations.

As someone who loves to use cotton everything- it pretty much never makes sense to use from an LCA perspective (and that's OK).

There's also a due south launch path at play.

Maybe, but there's some very specific legal language that cpra and the state requires everyone use in referring to some of these issues, and at least part of the land SpaceX is acquiring is involved in coastal restoration lawsuits or deep water horizon settlements or both.

As an engineer working on cpra projects in the past, I've wanted to reword a variety things but was forced to use their legal language.

It's mostly a good thing as it keeps things properly defined in a political context that are meant to have specific technical meanings (like marsh, beach, rebuild vs restore).

The key to understanding all of this is that a huge set of Americans 'want' to pay more as an exclusionary benefit.

With section 8 (fed housing welfare) rules, any multifamily structure has a better than not chance of becoming slum housing in a time frame less than the average span of homeownership.

Which is both about property values and not wanting to live in/near section 8 residents.

"Planning" and zoning aren't the problem, they're the enforcement mechanism. (Since police and other public enforcement of quality of life issues has been all but neutered in the name of equity/civil-rights/whatever.)

Same reason for the seemingly inexplicable popularity of HOAs that everyone seems to hate.

High prices are one of many resultant 'enforcement' prongs.

It generally means something is out of balance, which doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong. Usually not.

But if something is wrong, yea you can bet they will be burning off with big flares.

Yea while $ viability is true, it's better to think of as

1) using some potentially useful products as fuel to burning off things you don't want and

2) the buffer to keep non-steady inflows in a suitable ready condition for steady-state processing. (When real world steady-state is less than ideal.)

Number 2 is really what dominates the equation, as shutting in gas sources or even just turning off pipelines is incredibly more complicated than just an 'off' switch.

And turning back on is even more complicated. In the case of wells, once you shut in, turning back on may never result in the same level of production as before.

No- making a fake endangered species to shut down operations that don't actually harm the species (endangered or not)...

Is hardly the same as objecting to activities that distress pretty much all animals in the vicinity long term.

This is more preemptive I suspect- 'they' have been reclassifying different species trying to get a bona-fide Gulf endangered one to use against exploration and production. Especially that one whale subspecies.

This kills that on multiple fronts.

This common sense mindset would invalidate so many 'safety' laws and I'm all for it.

Studies make so many invalid assumptions (and usually don't even state them) to force the data / statistics to fit clean a/b or null testing.

But to put a dent in the status quo, we really need a greenlight to just dump however many kids in the back again, no matter the number of kids or seatbelts.

And before anyone gut reacts to this- ask yourself why doing that with schoolbuses still isn't a problem?

Most HVAC contractor counters carry packs of longer ones for insulating ductwork (though not as heavy duty as what's pictured).