neltnerb

From the point of view of "the market" I imagine that it's profitable rather than merely costless.

sigh

Read the post I originally replied to. I can't anymore.

"Ballistic just means that there is no active propulsion."

"Ballistic means it follows a ballistic trajectory, as in it is governed by gravity and inertia."

If we're being pedantic about explicitly not-the-point of my post, drag is an aerodynamic force and included in ballistic calculations. And gliders are not ballistic and are not under active propulsion.

Cool.

Now that we've cleared up that we can both understand definitions, try doing "There's nothing ballistic about laminar flow."

What does laminar flow have to do with it? Ballistic just means that there is no active propulsion.

I'm not saying it is ballistic, it clearly isn't if it is steered in flight.

I just don't know how "laminar" ended up in there, it is impossible to believe that these thrusters are not causing turbulence.

(1) is certainly correct, they're poorly understood when it comes to interactions and they almost never have much clinical evidence for claims (thus they say "support"). There are also heavy metal contaminants in all sorts of things, certainly stuff bad for babies.

Just to make clear that while (2) is at least an exaggeration unless you really stretch the issues with GRAS components not being adequately safety tested, it's certainly true that evidence of benefit is thin.

Personally I'd love to see the FDA actually regulate supplements, including actually testing additives for safety rather than falling back on GRAS sketchiness.

But we can't even test food for parasites and bacteria so I guess it falls to the consumer to somehow get enough information to make an informed decision.

I am surprised this take is controversial. It really seems almost certain whenever enough money is involved in controlling narratives and selling things, regardless of the details.

Certainly employees at these companies are earning more than a single dime, so even if innocent there's still an obvious conflict of interest. That doesn't mean the posters are wrong or their opinions invalid, on the contrary their direct experience is valuable to hear.

But they are certainly paid, and this is fair to remember when reading opinions.

edit: oh, I see, they're focusing on taking the last little bit super literally. great.

My point was that using something heavily means you have an informed opinion about hating it. Hating something you have never tried is way weirder.

> I wonder how many in that poll have a negative sentiment about AI, yet are also heavy users. There seems to be some kind of disconnect going on?

Being a heavy user seems like it'd create a lot of resentment if you don't actually enjoy doing it.

If you have used a tool for years and years and suddenly it shoves in a bunch of AI, like Duolingo or Google, are you a heavy user who may well dislike the results?

I have to put in some work to not be a heavy user by any reasonable definition.

Because companies that want to go public need to look profitable or potentially profitable. And before they go public they have to release real, actual, legally demonstrable numbers for their costs and revenue anyway.

It's wild to me that someone looking for advice on how to do any kind of stock trading would be looking for a once sentence answer.

I hope it at least has real citations to actual websites like, I dunno, fidelity or some other reasonably competent authority that can explain all the details?

It's an answer that's too short for an expert to find useful, and useless to a layperson unless all they want to do is reply to a post on twitter.

I've never searched for a financial question where I did not want to know all the weird details because why would I search for it unless I was considering doing it? Seems like someone who doesn't care about the answer is going to be more an edge case than I am.

Similarly, I put a repeater in an upper story of an apartment building in Boston and am reliably able to talk to people over 10+ hops. Right this second I'm able to talk to someone 99.5 miles away in Vermont.

We had to create different channels for different regions (connecticut, new hampshire, massachusetts, rhode island) just to keep from having hundreds of messages in a single public channel when posts are generally about local things.

Unfortunately it doesn't fix congestion issues completely, repeaters still repeat everything (and can't listen while transmitting) so packets from connecticut still put traffic onto the entire mesh all the way to new hampshire, but at least it's better organized.

It seems like there are some ideas to help with congestion, maybe making channels region specific (repeaters can be programmed to only repeat traffic with a certain region code) but for now it's shocking to me how far I can reach with a 0.125W radio.

But yeah, it's not "reliable", that's what TCP/IP is for =) Definitely a toy network for now, and a single malicious bot on the frequency band would absolutely wreck it. Or a single high power jammer sending out noise at just the wrong frequency. Definitely a fun project for people who would do ham radio if they had any interest in taking a test...

I wouldn't use it for emergencies though, it's theoretically a backup if the cell network and internet go down but the reliability just isn't there and I suspect never will be.

Why? They likely don't plan to make it out and it'll make them more famous after.

I admit it was a super meta-funny response, because everyone I see that's into meshcore thinks it's open source because of that repository and posts it after a 30 second google search when questioned.

Then you ask them to actually find a source file for the apps and they go quiet. It's wild how much it looks like open source from a casual glance.

At this point I'll believe it when the money actually moves.

There's been far to many "plans" and "commitments" and an awful lot of nothing actually happening.