DoD tries to cover up development of U2 and F117, and entire religion grows up from this

idk what i have expected

people out there signing off shit like that with their online presence that wouldn’t be waterboarded out of anyone 15 years ago

sea water is used for cooling NPPs, there are heat exchangers on the way anyway, so only these will corrode and not anything close to turbine nevermind reactor. but you also have to pick a place that won’t flood in any but extreme circumstances

these are autism particles

I’m the left leg clipping through the table. Also, i like how x axis on lower left chart is out of order

cryptobro on rationalist gambler on attention farmer violence

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

at least he didn’t cause a civil war

plenty of drone teams release geolocated videos day after they happen, but in this case i’ll guess that real sauce is classified top secret, that thing is outdated info and everyone is five steps ahead

ahem

triple the defense budget

the theoretical reason for doing that is that if you have to split jamming power over broader frequency range, then for every n^2 times increase in bandwidth, here number of channels, range decreases n times. however gnss signals are so weak, it probably doesn’t matter, and if you’re adding extra power per channel, then it doesn’t apply

now if missile detects that gnss is fucked with (signal too strong, wrong direction, physically impossible location), the correct thing to do would be to fallback to inertial navigation while accepting that accuracy decreases until gnss can be received again, if at all, and acted upon. theoretically speaking, it’s a matter of software update, better hardware also can help with that, so idk why would they release this. maybe there’s something that prevents this

i don’t remember who said it, but they described genai as in some way reverse bayesian spam filter - so if spam filter can adapt to variety of spams, now there’s automated tool to flood the zone with spam that does pass the filter. this was used for seo with predictable results

well it’ll become apparent during first attempts at writing a paper that requires them, but it can be a very long time if subject is dense enough

nahh first they’ll gonna try to build machine god and then any announcement will be in form of 30000 word long notices wait nvm

sounds good, no obvious critical materials but also first facilities are just in single MW range and came online like two months ago. needs like four orders of magnitude more. already matches lead acid on durability, still less than li-ion. maybe it’s solvable, but in case it’s not you can just burn it down because there’s nothing worthwhile to recycle and it’s nontoxic

this happens a lot. lithium anything has this problem obviously, but so do flow batteries (vanadium or zinc bromide - bromine is commercially sourced just from either dead sea or some american underground brines). some lithium batteries also use cobalt. hydrogen generation or fuel cells use a lot of platinum, (some of) new power electronics are made from GaN. etc etc

not a single serious person in that thread lol. also is rationalist castle’s isp blocking scihub? weird that that libertarian crowd didn’t hear about it

After moving out at 17, Aella briefly attended college in northern Idaho but ran out of money after a semester.

Aella already has better credentials than EY

weird that EDF didn’t want to buy it, maybe they also have surplus plutonium (reactor grade, so of worse quality)

either sub or aircraft carrier reactors might be somewhere around 50 to 220MWe, panamax might need 60MWe tops, regular land based PWRs are more like 300MWe and up. the smaller you go, the higher enrichment you need, but also military propulsion has different priorities, they use 90%+ enrichment in part because they can, and in part because this gives them massive excess reactivity, which means power level can change ridiculously fast. tradeoff is that spent fuel has much more useful uranium, and it’s overall expensive, but you also don’t skimp on your doomsday ride so it’s all fine. commercial powerplants are physically capable of doing slower load following, but it’s more economical most of the time to just use full power in order to best utilize fissile material. what you’re proposing would have all disadvantages of both, because no way in hell this thing will run on standard, low enriched fuel for PWRs, it might need something maybe more than 5%, maybe closer to 10%, perhaps more, which means problems, because it means worse proliferation risks than with normal fuel and it’s already fuel that goes around, and can be taken over in some unfriendly waters; higher enrichment also means it’ll be much more expensive, both because of more SWU needed, but also because it’s a specialty product that requires extra licensing; and it also won’t be as compact and responsive as military reactor, because civilians don’t get to play with HEU like that; and also it will require refueling after some time, maybe longer than regular-sized PWR (refueling every year to three) that probably will require visit to manufacturer to do refueling there, which would be, everything else equal, a bit harder than in regular powerplant because it needs to be done in a drydock

it has all disadvantages of SMRs but also you can steal them on high seas and it’s probably great for diplomacy if some random ass pirate get hands on that

no you can’t https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium_Management_and_Disposition_Agreement

russians did their part, they basically gave that plutonium to their nuclear engineers for new things development to fuck around with and got a couple of working fast reactors out of that. americans did something that is very mckinsey coded and debated whether to burn it in pwr as mox like the french do or mix it with some magic powder and hide it in mountain which would be basically the same, right, and russians didn’t like it because you can reverse that, and it ended up with americans doing nothing, then russians withdrew (and they were right in doing this)

tldr diplomacy by committee