Beamer

Yes, that's possible. Snap to edges of the frame, or to edges of other windows. I work daily with applications that have a design like this. You don't have to look further than any typical Microsoft business tool for that. Visual studio has used this type of UI design for many years, as does a variety of MS server applications (like their various server managers). So do many programmer environments from other companies, as well as coding-aimed text editors (UltraEdit, Notepad++ etc). I would say it's fairly common for productivity environments to allow the user to snap things like property windows or result windows to any edge of the screen or to the edge of another window, or even just snap them loose completely and place them anywhere on the screen as a loose floating window. It's less common in game design though, gaming companies tend to go for a specific look or design, artists are involved and we all know how those artsy types feel about messing up their carefully crafted ideas I believe the viewers used for SecondLife have a flexible UI design like this, arguably not a real 'game' but close enough. One of the first MMORPGs I played, Anarchy Online (think Everquest but in a sci-fi setting instead of a Tolkienesque setting) allowed you to snap various windows like inventory, nano-programs (i.e. spells), chat, equipment window etc to whatever edge you wanted in whatever order you wanted, and that was some 20 years ago. Sometimes it is accomplished by modders, I have seen several UI mods for Cyberpunk 2077 that allow you to move UI elements to whatever position you want them - the flexibility is there in the engine, it just wasn't implemented as such by the gaming company itself. So it's all perfectly possible, just less common in game design than in productivity applications.

Another one of the old masters kicked the bucket: https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/11/20/1558240/hard-science-fiction-master-greg-bear-dies-at-age-71

Don't know about a movie, but the aforementioned Larry Niven also wrote Footfall, about an invasion of Earth by an elephant-like civilization. Another great read from the master of sci-fi world building.

Story developing: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/legal/ / https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-admits-we-might-need-to-block-the-sun-to-stop-climate-change Finally! In 2010 the UN (in)famously placed a ban on any geoengineering projects in what I at the time believed (and still do) was the biggest mistake they ever made. Although I (and more importantly, the scientists involved) am well aware of the potential dangers of large scale geoengineering, they didn't just ban geoengineering, they banned even the small scale (in the field) research on such projects (there were some vague loopholes in the treaty however considering the burden of proof necessary to be allowed to run projects like this it effectively ruled out anything that went beyond "let's put a CO2 filter on this chimney"). See for example https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19660-what-the-un-ban-on-geoengineering-really-means/ Seems like at least some politicians are starting to wake up. although whether it lasts beyond this presidency time will have to tell...

But doesn't that create an infinite regress? You explained an acceleration in 3-space by creating an acceleration in 4-space. What causes 3-space to accelerate through 4-space? And although it seems to give a plausible explanation for what could be the cause of gravity, unless I missed something it doesn't seem to explain how an acceleration in 4-space causes us to observe an accelerating expansion in 3-space? To go back to the rubber sheet analogy, to create the observation for any 'flatlanders' on this sheet that their space is expanding faster and faster, we would have to actually stretch the rubber sheet, faster and faster. The only thing we need to do to create the gravity part for them is to translate the rubber sheet perpendicular to its plane (faster and faster). So even without the infinite regress, it doesn't seem to tie our observations of the expansion rate of the universe to this explanation of gravity. I won't go so far as to suggest stretching the rubber sheet would decrease the curvature of space-time which would mean we would need to accelerate through 4-space (or 3-space for the sheet) even faster and faster to compensate for that. This analogy definitely breaks down a few steps before that

I'm in the cinematic audience, and I endorse Mojave Green for the next major sci-fi blockbuster.

What about pears?

That's only half the story though. The surface gravity is the same but its mass is over 100 times smaller than Earth's to accommodate for the smaller radius. I bet this would have some unexpected effects on impact ejecta, even when you disregard material properties other than density (like tensile strength and what not). With the same amount of energy, your rocks don't go up as fast as on earth, but they also don't have to go as fast to reach orbit. Or is that one of those things where everything cancels out and you end up with the same result... Let's see, assuming the same size and energy a rock in the ejecta will only get 1/10th the speed it would get on Earth. But orbital speeds are only a factor of 3-4 lower than for Earth, not 10 times as low. So less chance for ejecta to reach orbit I would say, a lot more is going to fall back. And of course Kerbin also has a relatively thick atmosphere for its size further slowing down the ejecta. But in absolute terms it's thinner than earth's so the impactor is slowed down less (although that's probably negligible at the typical speed of a comet). We also have to keep in mind that most things in the Kerbin system seem to have a pretty high density, so the impactor likely would too. I wonder if Kerbin could have even formed a moon in the same way Earth presumably did. You'd need a lot more energy to get all that material in orbit, at which point you'd probably just smash the entire planet to pieces and create an asteroid belt like we have beyond Mars. I fear this is beyond the 'back of a napkin' level, anyone from NASA around who can simulate an Earth-like moon-forming impact on a planet with 1/10th the radius and 10 times the density?

Kerbal Engineer has an orbital period readout with millisecond precision, that helps a lot. I put 3 sats evenly spaced in orbit, then use that readout and minimal RCS puffs to equalize their orbital periods. They'll be good for hundreds of years without corrections. If there's a few meter difference in Pe/Ap of the orbits it doesn't matter, as long as their orbital period is the same Although useful for RL communication and positioning systems, geostationary orbits don't offer any advantage over non-stationary circular orbits in KSP because all antennas are omni-directional (as long as you don't get so low that the horizon starts causing large line-of-sight cut-offs). I personally prefer setting up my triangles close to the SOI edge to get maximum ground coverage and minimal relative drift. What matters is their spacing which is as much of a hassle for geostationary as non-geostationary orbits. Again, the orbital period readout is very useful for this (but it can be done with the base game time to Ap/Pe readouts and some simple calculus too of course). Assuming you release your sats from a single ship in the intended circular orbit, just retrograde burn 2 of them until their orbit is 2/3rd of the initial length, and circularize one of them after 1 orbit and the other after 2 orbits (MechJeb can do this automatically with the resonant orbit function). Then fine-tune using RCS or engine set to 1% thrust until their orbital periods match as close as you can get it and Bob's your uncle, a near perfect triangle for near eternity.

I was aiming at genetic monocultures, hence the banana example. There are dozens if not hundreds of different rice cultivars. Even then crop protection is a major headache for rice because of monoculture in the agricultural sense, with a lot of research going on (and fortunately progress being made with combining crops as well as combining it with fish 'farming', which is pretty clever IMHO). And that's for a staple food of which many varieties exist and which is primarily grown by small (in modern western crop-growing terms: absolutely tiny) farmers, so arguably one of the 'lesser monocultured' staple foods out there. You can't really compare the present day agricultural practices to those of even a few hundred years ago. When there's only a few hundred million people on earth, you can throw away a plastic bottle or drop a mercury thermometer once in a while without destroying entire ecosystems. With 8 billion not so much. Scale changes a lot of things that we once took for granted, and that includes rice cultivation. Edit: Just wanted to add, anyone interested in a great future dystopian sci-fi novel tackling the subjects of global warming, rising sea levels, post-carbon energy and genetic monoculture I would recommend to read The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi, winner of both the Nebula and Hugo awards for best novel in 2010. I was going to say it's definitely in my top 10 best of the last 10 years until I looked up the wiki link and once again was confronted with how time flies, so let's say top 12 of the last 12 years

True, but that's only a bad thing if you think in terms of the length of a political career. Over the long term, monocultures = no productivity at all. Just look at the Gros Michel, and the Cavendish doesn't seem far behind that example.

I like to think I keep up to date on my internet memes, but until 2 weeks ago I never heard of this Mr Beast. When I did and had a look at a few of his videos, I wondered the same thing I always wonder about 'personality' centered YT channels. But hey if he gets the good message out there, he's got my blessing Still, the usage of land that has already been earmarked for natural regeneration is a big issue. It makes sense of course, no land developer is going to give up his high priced and prized land, bought to build a mall or houses, for a bunch of trees. If some well meaning charity asks a mayor of a city if he has some land to spare for a tree planting action, the mayor is going to say "Sure, we weren't doing anything with this piece of land anyway". That really needs to change before we get anywhere. Planting trees instead of letting them grow naturally doesn't really help all that much, even when done sensibly and responsibly (although that's still a lot better than the picture I posted).

I am a firm believer in chaos theory My deep space network looks like a kid with green, yellow and red pens and a ruler went to town on a blank sheet of paper. I typically put 3 relays around any planet in a regular triangle, (near) equatorial, a ways outside the orbit of the furthest moon, plus 1 or 2 in a polar orbit, these ones typically inside the orbit of any moons. But the strength of my network mostly comes from the interplanetary relays. I occasionally send up a batch of 4 or so and put them in various Kerbol orbits, at inclinations up to 30 degrees, and any planetary transfer booster I use that won't be crashed into its target gets a relay antenna and is left in whatever Kerbol orbit it ends up in (it's not waste if it has a function). Asteroid scanners also get a relay antenna. At any time I will have several high power relays above and below the plane, covering the higher latitudes of nearby planets and moons. It seems to work, I've literally never lost connection with any vessel in my current career game.

Technological carbon capture and storage is very expensive and at the current levels of technology not effective enough to make much of a dent. However, there are some clever people thinking up low tech ways, like https://geobites.org/carbon-to-carbonates-capturing-co2-with-rocks/. Of course the good old 'planting trees'* is another low tech method. Capturing carbon is something the earth has been doing for a long time through various means, we can leverage those means if we're smart about it. Technology is not necessarily always the best solution, and it's unlikely we'll find a 'silver bullet' solution, progress will have to come from a variety of methods. * A big problem with almost all of the current tree planting actions is that the land used for this is typically land that has already been earmarked to 'naturally regenerate'. So instead of a beautiful natural forest we get regular mono-cultures like this: As much as I like to see more trees, that is obviously not a good way to go about it. The same field would have been a lot more 'healthy' if it was just left alone for a while. And of course, planting them on one side and cutting them down on the other just as fast doesn't help much either. If we want more trees, we should probably stop cutting them down before we try to plant more.

Save Jebus. Trivial.

Superman and Supergirl are not human though.

I was made to understand their superpowers were limited to telekinesis and flight. The ability to work together as one with other humans from a plethora of different cultures and backgrounds was never mentioned . In general, power makes people bigger egomaniacs, not smaller ones. Most superhero comics and films do a good job of ignoring this of course. In the real world, a 'superhero' would just be a supervillain whose goals happen to align with yours.

Provide a solid dental plan and hire more of them than your enemies.

November 9th 1967: First test flight of the Saturn V, launching Apollo 4 from KSC launch complex 39: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_4 November 9th 2005: ESA launches the Venus Express: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Express

My Dres Station Expansion mission arrived and was connected to the tiny initial station I sent there some years ago. The expansion is just a central cross connector and a large fuel storage tank with docking ports. It was also carrying a fancy tourist lander for up to 21 people (a Mk-2 lander can and Mk-3 capsule hidden under the fairing). I flew my Koffer Ku-134 back from the desert to KSC, with another perfect landing without use of autopilot. I'm still surprised how such a large jet plane can feel like a tiny chopper bi-plane. Compared to this my fuel refinery plane flies a lot like a brick doesn't, I might have to try using this wing design on it, although it does take up a lot more parking space. A day after the Dres station expansion my NuKerBus Mk-2 arrived at Dres, I had the 8 tourists and 3 crew flying in the lander, but I need something to take them back to Kerbin too, so this interplanetary shuttle was sent along without crew. Then I spent some time watching empty capsules almost burn up in the atmosphere but just make it through to finally crash into the ground or water at terminal velocity. I push the vessels of the rescue contracts to an orbit with a 25-30K periapsis but they won't actually crash unless I watch them, sort of a Schrodinger orbit. I don't mind watching it but I wish they'd explode from overheating. Interestingly, an empty Mk-1 passenger cabin will actually survive a drop from low orbit into the water and can be recovered, but all the others go boom when they crash.

For the purpose of showing temperature differences since we started accurately measuring them. This is not really a popular press publication (although the absolutely horribly over-designed website might make you think different), it assumes that the people reading it have some prior knowledge and familiarity with conventions. The problem has been identified, it's getting a lot hotter fast. The solutions will have to be ignorant of the whodunnit, leave that to the historians (disclaimer: I am not). All data we have suggests that even if we go back to pre-industrial levels right now (which is of course impossible, and would in itself be a disaster even greater than the climate change) it will still keep getting worse for a long time. People need to be a little less concerned about avoidance, a lot less concerned about the guilt question, and a lot more concerned about battening down the hatches. Avoidance alone is not a solution, it is part of it for sure and just 'good common sense' but it's not going to be enough. Expressed in both economical and personal damage, climate change is already a disaster by all reasonable definitions of the word. It doesn't matter if it's getting hotter because we are coming out of an ice age or because our cows and cars and factories are gassy or how much exactly each contributes, what matters is that it's doing huge amounts of damage and we'll be getting more of that in the future. We know ways to reduce our own footprint, so let's do that for starters, that's the good common sense part. But aside from that we need to pump a lot more money into research focused on reducing the speed of change or even reversing it, and into preparing for the worst. Whether that's through CO2 reclamation or mirrors in space to reflect sunlight or just strengthening the dykes, or whatever people can come up with if we get serious about it doesn't really matter, as long as it works. TLDR: We've learned the planet is getting hotter, and that we are at least contributing to that. Now we need to learn how to live with a hotter climate, and learn how to make it colder.

The first graph is showing temperature differences from pre-industrial conditions, so it makes perfect sense to use a baseline before the industrial revolution. 1850 is a common choice as starting point because that's when thermometer based record keeping began. Data from before that time is generally less precise since it's indirectly inferred from tree rings, ice cores etc. For graphs not centered around a specific historic event or period the choice of baseline is pretty much arbitrary, what matters is the trend.

The WMO released their 2022 report last Sunday, their findings on sea level rise seem relevant to the discussion: https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/climate/wmo-statement-state-of-global-climate

November 8th 1656: Edmond Halley (of Halley's Comet fame) is born. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_Halley November 8th 1950: during the Korean war, a USAF F-80 Shooting Star encounters 2 North Korean MiG-15s in the first jet aircraft to jet aircraft dogfight in history. Source: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-the-usaf-f-80-pilot-who-shot-down-a-north-korean-mig-15-in-the-worlds-first-jet-versus-jet-combat/