opensores
Joined 4 years ago
Joined 4 years ago
The benefits of large walkable cities is that people get motivated to do urban 'hikes' and the hours of exercise are much larger than in typical cities (especially compared to walking and cycling unfriendly cities).
As far as 'conspiracy theorists' this represents a vast spectrum of individuals, and no doubt that would be foolish to lump into a single one-dimensional stereotype unless your aim is some sort of propaganda or social conditioning.
Coffee on an empty stomach is not good over repeated long term occasions, as it leads to cortisol spikes. If empty-stomaching coffee, it is a good time to pop some trace metal and mineral pills (iron, manganese, zinc, selenium, chromium, moly, boron, magnesium).
Any problems with thiamine are easily reversed via thiamine supplementation. I try to take B-50 complex two or three times a week, and a thiamine supplement on alternate days, roughly at the same frequency.
Coffee does seem to have net benefits. It's good against brain cloud.
If anyone is looking for a fun numerical simulation project I highly recommend reading up on the Vortex Lattice Method, which is an approximation that turns a problem of fluid mechanics into a the problem of solving a system of linear equations.
For a kernel panic or lockup I think it's a combination roughly similar to:
1. Ctr-Alt-PrintScreen
2. continue to hold Alt
3. R-I-S-U-B as a sequence, to make certain things happen and like syncing the file system
The rocket achieves orbit from the potential energy plus the kinetic energy. (Both kinetic and potential energy factor need to be a taken into account at the time the air drop.)
Being dropped from a 747 the kinetic energy is far smaller than the potential energy. The 747 goes perhaps mach 0.8-something with a ceiling over 40,000 ft; say roughly 14 km.
That potential energy is equivalent to about 530 m/s.
(So, in terms of energy, you are comparing a bit under Mach 1 with a bit over Mach 1.5.) sqrt(2 g h) if you want to do the arithmetic: g=10m/s/s and h=14km.
So added together we are talking about Mach 2.5 equivalent launch speed from the aircraft stage, from an airliner like a 747 or 707. This is significant. Remember you're also doing the equivalent of accelerating the propellant that would be needed to accelerate the rocket up to this energy.
Now if you launch it from something like a military craft (Mig 31 or Tu-160) then you can ballpark add another Mach 1, so we're in the ballpark Mach 3.5 region. Probably exceeding Mach 4 for the Mig 31, but of course it only could launch a small orbital rocket.
Now Kerbal is an interesting way to get very crude approximations. And the reason usually that my above simple calculation ends up not impressing as much as it should is that the orbital rocket needs to transition from a horizontal flight path to something much steeper, or it will take a very long path through the upper atmosphere. This long path ends up creating a huge amount of friction eating into much of your gains imparted by the air launch.
Even though the atmosphere ~30 km high is incredibly thin, it will burn your vehicle that is racing though it at speeds that are ballpark Mach 10 (possibly considerably higher). In other words, massive amounts of friction.
A ground launched vehicle can take almost the shortest way, and pierce the atmophere with minimal friction---almost a vertical path through. That is ground launch's biggest advantage. It will pierce the thickest part of the atmosphere vertically and gracefully and optimally arc into a horizontal path near its peak (the height of the orbit).
Coffee is best with a meal; it raises the stomach acid, which improves digestion of the meal. Plus you don't get the cortisol spike when it's taken with a substantial meal.
Definitely wean yourself away from adding sugar to coffee. I have it without any sugar, but a bit of cream, and nible a pastry along side drinking the coffee. So if you can nibble on something sweet, absolutely skip the added sugar in the coffee.
And then there's this risk (below) which should make you think twice about putting your telephone in your pant or jacket pockets.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XGg7UNCgnx4d/
And now back to the thermal limits. If you are exposed above thermal limits you are raising your cancer risks. This was known since the 40s (eg ww 2 radar operators) and is well established. In the past few decades the only debate was whether sub thermal limits of microwave and UHF and higher frequency RF raises cancer risks; the evidence is slowly piling up, and it seems those urging caution are being proven correct.