This is probably not an issue for thermal TSVs, because of the heat spreader layer between each silicon layer, but it would become an issue for power TSVs, as each layer would (presumably) require an independent supply of power.

1: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cycli...

My hope with Pulsar Fusion is that their existing thruster business provides the necessary revenue to both keep them solvent, and attract continued investment, until they're able to get their Fusion Drive off the ground.

> Modelling shows that this technology can potentially propel a spacecraft with a mass of about 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) to Pluto in 4 years.

They're apparently targeting an in-orbit test in 2027. Even if this were to slip to 2030, and becomes commercially available in 2040, I expect that would be plenty of time for a rendezvous with Sedna's perihelion

The JVM used to have a reputation for requiring byzantine flags to properly optimise its performance (mostly GC configuration). We've mostly left that behind these days, but it feels like JEP 519 takes a step backwards here.

I always got the impression that when Dark Matter was initially labelled as such, it was just a name for the discrepancy between theoretical models and observations; and that the name itself seems to have driven this idea that it's the observations that are wrong and not the models.

Personally, when discussing Dark Matter vs. MOND, I think neither should be treated as a concrete "theory", but simply a different perspective on where the problem lies. "Dark Matter" is the idea that our observations are incomplete, and MOND is the idea that our theoretical models are wrong.

Hopefully this conundrum is resolved within my lifetime, because I'd love to know what the answer is. It would be absolutely wild if they're both right i.e. that our observations are incomplete and our models are wrong.

What really matters is their velocity relative to each other, which of course will vary, especially for objects on different orbits that happen to intersect.

The closing velocities involved can still be very high, and the "bullet" metaphor still applies in most cases, but it's misleading to label them as travelling at "17,500 mph (28,160 kph)".

The other thing that always bothers me is the graphical depictions that show a "point cloud" of debris in orbit around Earth. These always underplay the size of the earth and overplay the size of the orbital objects.

When discussing space debris, it's always worth remembering that there's approximately 10,000 planes in the air at a given time, and yet if you look up, how many can you see in the sky above you?

Since orbits are much higher, they're consequently much larger, providing even more available space than there is to commercial aviation. Not only that, but there's a far greater altitude range available for satellites than for planes, making the available space out there even more massive.

I don't doubt that space debris is an (emerging) problem, but the current severity of it often seems overplayed by the mainstream media.

The section you quoted actually suggests that implementations should support ISO-8859-1 to ensure compatibility with systems that use it.

As it stands, is yet another example of privatising profits while socialising the costs, just in this case, the costs weren't (entirely) financial.

A better comparison would be "Not Cola", which AFAIK would be an acceptable name for a drink. See literally all smaller Cola brands which include the word "Cola" in their name.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35987082

Points: 1

# Comments: 0