Subsidies by number of installed chargers instead of uptime?

You mean twitter is designed for brainfarts? In that case it might not be a bad idea to increase the character limit. At least give people the option to express some actually thoughtful content for a change.

I'm sure there will be no problems with this /s

Sooo: Charging stations can expand to have some assumed high energy usage by 2035 but grids are forbidden to be adapted till then? Is that what this article is trying to sell? Really?

I mean: energy providers make money off of selling energy. Don't you think they will make sure that they can do that?

Clickbait (as usual).

13k due to potentially faulty seatbelts (to be checked)

Rest is an OTA.

Battery prices have dropped a casual 90% over the past 10 years. There's still quite some way to drop. Don't let the high raw material prices fool you. Cost savings come largely from economies of scale - not raw materials.

The controlling of these planes isn't the issue (that's solved. If the electronics fail you're screwed in a traditional jet just as much as you would be in a flying wing).

The issue is airports. Airports are built for planes with certain dimensions in mind. You can't just bring in an new (big) form factor - you'd have to revamp every (major) airport in the world. That's not going to happen.

Quite the opposite.

At 50000mph (a bit over 22km/s) you wouldn't see anything moving. (Well, unless you encountered a micrometeorite at that speed. Then you would probably see something, but it wouldn't be fun).

You really only see anything changing on appreciable timescales once you're very close to your target.

Really visible effects during flight would only happen if you could get close to the speed of light (300000km/s), where light from stars ahead of you would be blue shifted and light from stars behind you would appear red shifted. You'd also get some weird distortion effects in front and behind.

...but if you encounter even a grain of dust at those speeds you're in for a very bad day.

Depends on size, speed and how 'central' it would hit. Possibly also on composition (if it's very 'loose' then there's less effort to disperse it). All of these would determine how difficult it is to deflect...or whether it's possible at all. Beyond a certain size there's just nothing we can do.

But the idea is to detect them early and then have several years (5+) to stage a deflection mission. The further out you deflect the less change in its path is needed.

It helps. The way this works is that you download a small packet to work on and then it sends the results back and gets the next packet (also there is redundancy in case someone doesn't send a packet back for a long time for whatever reason it gets distributed to someone else)

There's no need for reacting to asteroids "on a second's notice" (that's the whole point of doing this, really), so whether you work on each packet for an hour or a day makes no difference. With a slower computer you'll just go through less packets per day.

Consider that once a dangerous asteroid is detected it will take months/years to get a deflection mission launched - so a day or a week of 'delay' on the processing side isn't going to affect anything.

Since the introduction of Model 3 Tesla uses CCS2 in Europe, like everyone else. (Many supercharger stalls have two cables so that the older Model S and X can also charge since they still have the Tesla proprietary port)

>This is something I haven’t seen make main stream space news often. The “Goldilocks Zone” is a real simplification for habitability.

It also completely ignores life that is not land based. Or different than humans.

I.e. the 'Goldilocks zone' theory is complete rubbish.

Sigh...expansion. Not explosion. The two are very different concepts.

You can do some stuff that helps people who aren't familiar with the math. E.g. you can color in the pixels that most prominently went into making a decision. If the 'relevant' pixels are nowehere near the lesion then that's a pretty good indication that the AI is telling BS.

Another idea that is being explored is that it will select some images from the training set that it thinks show a similar pathology (or not) and display those alongside.

Problem isn't so much that AI makes mistakes (anyone can forgive it that if the overall result is net positive). The main problem is that it makes different mistakes than humans...i.e. you're running the risk of overlooking something that a human would have easily spotted if you overrely on AI diagnstics.

oops..sorry..wrong thread (redacted)

Well, I'm drawing the analogy to Tesla. While one can have a viable product in a much shorter timespan: in order to reap real economies of scale type benefits (i.e. what will set the winner apart from the 'also-ran' competition that will eventually go bankrupt because they cannot offer a competitive product at a similar price ) you have to go big. And I mean: REALLY big. Large factories. Global resource chains. That takes time.

Depends on where you live but it could simply be regulations. AI isn't allowed to make diagnostic decisions and some places mandate a 4 eye rule (i.e. 2 independent physicians have to look at a scan)

Then there's time constraints. The amount of time physicians can spend looking at a scan is severely limited (just a few seconds on average). Many AI implementations take too long and are therefore not useful (Hospitals are paid by throughput. Slowing down the workflow is not acceptable)

There's also a bit of an issue with "explainable AI". If the output isn't easily explainable then it's not going to be accepted by the physician.

But the general attitude towards AI assisted reading seems to be changing, so I'd expect AI based reading assitance to become the norm in the next 10 years or so.