Recent submissions

Comment · 3 years ago
Really bad HN title "Same Energy Density at Half the Weight". That is nonsensical; "density" should be elided in the title. The actual goal is to double the energy density so that the battery can provide the same energy at half the weight.

"Simply, the energy density would be doubled. So same energy, same volume base, kind of half [the weight]," Aoyama said.

Comment · 3 years ago
(2018)
Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
P.S. Most web sites use Google analytics, which relies on JavaScript so, as a bonus, I'm in Google's blind spot.
Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
If you read with JavaScript disabled, she says

Hey NoScript peeps, (or other users without Javascript), I dig the way you roll. That's why this page is mostly static and doesn't generate the list dynamically. The only things you're missing are a progressive descent into darkness and a happy face who gets sicker and sicker as you go on. Oh, and there's a total at the bottom, but anyone who uses NoScript can surely count for themselves.

Rock on!

Love it!

Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
Most/all of the legacy "name brand" companies sell their logo to third party manufacturers. For instance, GE does not make any of the consumer products that bear their logo.

To the two parts to your question:

a) Yes.

b) No. Your example of the weird English in the manual is witness to the fact that Philips does not care at all about the product, only the licensing fees they collect.

Comment · 3 years ago
If you click to bring up the "start menu", you can then right-click on the "live" boxes that come up with the start menu and remove them. This doesn't remove the bloatware, but does remove the distracting crap that Microsoft is pushing in your face.
Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago
Text version: https://spacenews.com/software-problem-blamed-for-ispace-lun...

tl;dr: The landing site was changed late in the mission planning sequence (after the Critical Design Review). As a result of the landing site change, the lander went over a crater which caused the distance to the surface to change significantly. This was detected by the laser altimeter, but the altimeter reading was discarded because of the rapid change (assumed to have failed).

As a result, "the lander was still about five kilometers above the surface when the lander’s computer believed it was on the surface. The lander continued to descend at a slow rate of about one meter per second under its thrusters until it exhausted its propellant. The lander then went into freefall, crashing into the surface at a speed of more than 100 meters per second."

Comment · 3 years ago
Comment · 3 years ago

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton