https://www.practo.com/medicine-info/camostat-2499-api

I'm just a layperson, but this looks like a run-of-the-mill prescription drug. Hope this helps to allay some concerns and keep the signal-to-noise ratio higher.

In short, there's no practical way to stick an atmosphere, much less a civilization composed of life forms that depend on gravity, to the inside of the sphere, even if the other engineering challenges could be overcome.

* One thing that's suddenly more interesting to me now is if the space at any point is being "pulled" equally in all directions, resulting in zero force, or if the bends in space-time cancel out. In the limit, for example, could you "tear" space-time inside a dense enough and/or heavy enough shell of matter?

Buy the book. It's cheap, and an engaging quick read. Good luck to you all!

Oof. One need only to peruse your comment history to see where this sentiment is coming from, but even that is no excuse for that obtuse argument.

"Perpetual motion," on the one hand, is quackery outlawed by straightforward thermodynamics, breaking the rules of which allows assertions like "chair seats and door handles should be spontaneously heating up to incandescence essentially at random." Fusion, on the other hand, is a technical problem.

Fusion researchers at MIT, ITER, and other institutions at the top tiers of academia across the globe are not a cabal of greedy grant-dependent charlatans bamboozling their way through careers in bad faith, deliberately ignoring the lone rational voice of Lidsky and his Johnny-Come-Lately-The-Baptist on HN, u/pfdietz. It's perfectly rational (Sane, even!) to cast aside internet naysayers (no matter how zealous) in favor of deferring to, you know, actual experts.

This is widely debunked. The above is but one of many such counterpoints.

I'm not throwing shade on Carmack when I say that the reason the author states seems to me to be evidence, taken alone, of the exact opposite of the case that Carmack is "the archetypal genius video game programmer." Or, if it is, then it impugns the profession of video game programming, because, in most real engineering fields, a literature review is the first step, not the desperate measure taken after "creativity" has been exhausted. It seems to me that a better case can immediately be made that the originators of the technique are the real geniuses, having come up with the idea, and Carmack just adopted it. Geniuses create; the rest of us adopt, right?

Again, don't get me wrong: Carmack could program circles around me. (Or ellipses, or pentagons, or particle clouds, or fractals, or...) But affirming the consequent doesn't make him "a genius." He may or may not be, for other reasons, but 'applying a known technique' just can't be one of them.

I went through a regrettable phase of reading about military strategy and the like, and one of the things that stuck was how good strategies need to have a component of randomness to them, to make them unpredictable by the enemy. Trump is chaos and randomness, and him having landed on this issue, and in such a random (?) and (apparently?) sexist way is both testament to that, and an indicator of the danger he poses to Democrats and what passes for the left in the US: They've left themselves exposed on many fronts because they've faced a very ordered and predictable foe until Trump. Nobody, but nobody, on the right would have launched an attack on the left with "women have told me dishwashers suck, now," before Trump, so they were free to pass stricter and stricter regulations, unpunished by the cost to consumer satisfaction.

I am loath to admit it, but there is something to be admired, here, some kind of low genius that demands respect, under threat of great peril if respect is not afforded.

I'm curious if others can reproduce this for themselves?

My hypothesis is that the visual areas of the brain can get involved when the eyes are closed, and can pick up and interpret the proprioceptive information spatially. It may be that it's always happening, but that the "image" of one's hands is swamped by visual data when the eyes are open. Another hypothesis, I suppose, is that the visual expectation of the hands may be registering or, rather, its absence. You're "seeing" the expectation of the hands that should be there, but are blocked by your eyelids.

I should say that the sensation of seeing the hands is pretty fine, extending to the motions of the fingers. That said, it's easy enough to lose the image or forget it is there.

From the fine article:

> "Neuronal overactivity may not feel like anything in particular from the viewpoint of the worm, mouse or human, unless it gets bad enough to provoke seizures. But perhaps over time it may damage neurons."

No.

I wonder if the philosophical questions asked in the fine article could have been addressed more satisfyingly from that more general starting point?

Arguing that mere capture would require more energy than is released would be akin to arguing that cleaning the fireplace would require more energy than was released by the fire, on the mistaken grounds that ash removal took as much energy as regrowing the wood that was burned. Both the ash and the CO2 are in a lower energy state, so there's thermodynamic room to maneuver.

What we have here is a glossed-up version of the simple observations that spinning things spin, and "rolling" things move faster at the top than at the bottom. The rest has been left as an exercise for the reader's active and uninformed imagination. Don't fall for it.

FWIW, my guess is that exactly 0 tethers as described in the video will ever play an important role in getting humans into space, for various reasons of various veracity. But it's all guesswork, which is all any of us have. Oh, and sign up for Brilliant.com.

These smaller reactors should be cheaper and faster to build.

Later, one of the employees told a story about how he met Beckey at the counter one time. Beckey had asked if he could climb, and the employee told him the rate for a day pass, not realizing who it was.

"I'm Fred," Beckey volunteered in frustrated amazement.

"Fred who?"

"Fred Beckey."

He waved him in to climb for free, of course.

Long ago, some cranky academic wrote on his very well-sourced and specialized website, back when there was still that sort of thing, something like, "Everybody said that the internet was going to let anybody say anything at all. It turns out they were right."

I'm fine with the backlash from what you call my "gatekeeping." (I imagine that some gates need to be kept, but I suppose that's another story.) My point is that "the best on YouTube" is not as grand a qualification as one might suspect, and is certainly not a guarantee of accuracy.

As someone who does have some training in it, I can say that "best space content on YouTube" is akin to "best brain surgeon in a room full of circus clowns."

He gets a lot of stuff right, don't get me wrong. But the appearance of credibility is down to enthusiasm, specialty of focus, and editing and delivery. It's fine as far as it goes, but it's infotainment. It's more important that you be entertained and feel smart than sit down and struggle with the actual application of engineering principles and achieve any kind of reliable knowledge.