Also, removable batteries and waterproofing are not mutually exclusive. There have been flagships that were waterproof and had a removable battery, like the Galaxy S5. And there still are phones like that. Manufacturers have taken this away from us.

Also, also, every other industry has seemed to have figured it out. Go to the dollar store and you will find a flashlight that is waterproof and has easily replaceable AA batteries. Its not that complicated. Apple is one of the most successful companies on the planet, they can hire an engineer to come up with a decent solution. Apple et al. using waterproofing as an excuse to make the entire phone disposable when, not if, the battery dies is bullshit.

This is bad advice.

Use both hands.

neovim with vimtex as an editor.

texlive-latexmk to compile.

zathura as a viewer.

git as version control.

Why would you use an online editor?

That’s why I use LaTeX

FTFY

That’s a cup. Coup is the sound doves make.

A power companies largest expense is maintaining the grid. If their only product has to be sold at negative prices, then there is no money to pay people to maintain the grid. An under maintained gridgrid can lead to very serious consequences, ref:Texas.

When she asks “Can I have your name?”, don’t give it to her.

You forgot “Squish the cat”.

I’ve had this same conversation I don’t know how many times, but about phones. Someone tells me they don’t like Android because its slow and buggy, and iPhone is so much better. Then I ask them which Android phone(s) they’ve tried and its always a loaner that is a cheap, entry level phone and/or it is used and years out of date. So of course a brand new iPhone is going to be a better experience. They don’t seem to understand that there are premium phones that use Android.

https://vimeo.com/62358059

Clean your microwave

“The Year Of Linux on Desktops”. Been hearing this for decades, but it might actually be happening.

Been hearing this for decades.

You could try this

What you’re talking about is usually referred to as a de-orbit burn. Sure somebody could call it a reentry burn, but not SpaceX. What SpaceX calls a reentry burn is the maneuver when a Falcon 9 booster lights its engines as it first hits the atmosphere to slow down and move the heating away from it’s body. Neither the super heavy booster nor the ship make a maneuver like this.

IFT3 did not make a de-orbit burn, and there is not one planned for IFT4 either.

IFT3 was technically suborbital, but only barely. Like a couple hundred km/h short. Literally a couple of seconds longer second stage burn would have put it into a stable orbit. Or the same velocity just with a lower apogee. They intentionally left the perigee just inside the atmosphere so a deorbit burn was not required. This is also the plan for IFT4, iirc. I think they are talking about the bellyflop/suicide burn. It was not planned on IFT3, but is for IFT4.

Both the booster and the ship have attitude control thrusters that you could see firing during the live stream of IFT3. Early prototypes used nitrogen cold-gas thrusters, but were planned to be upgraded to methane/oxygen hot-gas thrusters at some point. I don’t recall if/when they were.

the explosion, which took place at its Boca Chica Starbase facilities

The raptor testing stand at McGregor experienced an anomaly

Well, which is it? I’m going to trust NASASpaceflight over this article and go with it was a McGregor. No where near Starbase. And that means it will likely have no effect on IFT4 as this article says.

edit: Adding to this, the author of this article has no idea what they are talking about.

The Raptor engines that are currently undergoing testing are SpaceX’s Raptor 2 engines

So clearly nothing to do with IFT4, as Ship 29 and Booster 11 are already outfitted with their engines, non of which are Raptor 2s.

On its last flight test, IFT-3, Starship finally reached orbital velocity and it soared around Earth before crashing down into the Indian Ocean. On the next flight, SpaceX aims to perform a reentry burn, allowing Starship to perform a soft landing in the ocean.

IFT3 burned up on reentry, maybe parts of it made it to the ocean, but it was not crashing into the ocean that was the problem. IFT4 does not plan on doing a reentry burn. No one does a reentry burn from orbit. Starship uses a heat shield like every other orbital space craft. They are planning to attempt a landing burn, that is probably what they are talking about.

It has likes/dislikes instead of star ratings, so it is pretty recent.

What would be weirder is an app counting down how much time you have left.

The point is the “energy well”. That is the elements “in the middle” of the periodic table are more stable/at lower energy states. So fusioning heavy elements or fissioning light elements move to higher energy states, so it will take more energy in than it releases.

Wouldn’t that be concentrating, not diluting?