were able to efficiently degrade n-alkanes under conditions simulating the deep sea, as did a reference Oleibacter strain cultured at atmospheric pressure.
Better build quality for one. The experience of actually driving a Tesla is undeniably sweet, but the panel gaps, the feeling of cheap half-assedness about details is not (especially at the Tesla price). More broadly price and range need to improve for those of us not willing to spend a premium just because it’s Tesla, and who don’t make only small commutes in a place full of superchargers. For me as well, OTA updates and the willingness of the CEO to go public blaming the driver for an accident is a no-go as well as all-touchscreen controls.
Have you ever read the Financial Times? More broadly, in addition to FT I try to get a multitude of perspectives without straying too far into extremes (so no Fox News, no CNN) and I try to rely on single-topic sites. FT, NYT, Jerusalem Post, AlJazeera, Aviation Week, BBC, SkyNews, a handful of science and tech journals, HN, and some others. You can get a fairly balanced (not perfect) perspective without the kind of moral panicking and clickbait you’d often find. BBC and Sky being exceptions, but that’s my local news.
It’s important to realize that Brexit is a bit more complicated than the rhetoric would have you believe. First it began with a combination of simple populism/nationalism/jingoism in the form of UKIP and at the same time a section of the political class in the Tory and Labour parties. For the Tories (at least the ones who became ERG members) it’s pure self-interest. They are filthy rich and like many filthy rich businessmen they think they’d thrive in a more lenient regulatory environment. They can create that environment for themselves if the EU is out of the picture and they keep power. Labour is more Remain, but Corbin and his fellow hardliners want a Brexit because they want the UK to be Socialist/Marxist. They know that’s just not going to happen in the context of the EU.
So you had Farrah’s and others playing the usual “Hey struggling masses, all of your problems are those immigrant’s fault” game. Over time the political success of UKIP and internal strife within the Tories led David “The Chinless Pudding” Cameron to promise that he would hold a referendum on the issue of re-elected. At the time he assumed that he would win by the same narrow margin he had previously and once again would enter into a “power-sharing” deal with the Liberal Democrats. He could then blame the LibDems for blocking the referendum, defuse the Tory civil war, and shut Farage up for another election cycle.
Then he won, decisively, and the LibDems tanked. So Cameron had no excuse to not have the referendum. He assumed that people who had been openly pro-remain such as Boris Johnson would put aside their personal ambitions and support Remain, but of course that didn’t happen. So what you had was a group of highly motivated people such as Boris who used this as a means to get power, people like Farrage being populist demagogues, and the ERG playing ideologue while just looking to get even richer. Cameron quit and literally walked away humming a little tune, and the Tories went to war with themselves. In the end everyone “died” and out of the ashes rose the silent one, Theresa May, who had switched from staunch pro-Remain to equally staunch Brexiteer mode overnight.
The rest is history. In a sense at the highest levels where Brexit isn’t about gaining short-term power and settling grudges, it’s about the long-term goal of being able to capture UK regulatory bodies. “People” like Jacob Rees-Mogg see how the business class can rob the state in the US, and they want a slice of that. The EU would prevent much of it, so they want out of the EU. The details of why individual people (who bothered to vote at all) voted to Leave is a lot less interesting and has less to do with Brexit than the political reality.
It’s not that interesting unfortunately, although I liked your approach. A graviton would be just another boson like a photon, and like a photon would be unable to escape. All of the worldlines of a graviton within the event horizon would lead to a collision with th singularity. It’s just another aspect of “No Hair” on the hole.
Remember that this applies everything where r≤1. As far as “flat” worldlines I think you might be thinking of a geodesic approaching r=1 in terms of a null geodesic, which isn’t necessarily true unless we’re dealing with a photon or graviton. Regions I,II of the Classic Kruskal-Szekeres extension illustrates this pretty clearly.
The total mass of the black hole (and all other information possible about it) can be described in terms of the boundary at r=1, so there’s no problem with mergers or accretion. To answer Wallace’s original question, we see no information escaping the black hole. What we’re seeing is sort of like shining a light on an absence of information, and observing the shadow cast. That’s not quite right, but it’s close.
But there pretty clearly is a gravitational field at r > 1. If that field is made up of gravitons, and a graviton can't escape from the mass to outside r = 1, then what is the source of the gravitons that compose the field at r > 1? If they don't originate at the mass, then... what?
The manifold is well-behaved and continuous at r=1, and mass is one of the few characteristics a black hole has other than spin and charge. Gravitons from within the event horizon won’t escape, but the event horizon itself can be thought of as the entire black hole (for everything outside of the black hole).
Thank you for that link - it was very helpful. Summarizing:
The same problem would exist for the electric field from a charged black hole. However, static fields don't need propagating photons to establish them, so you don't have to get photons from inside the black hole in order for the electric field to be established outside.
The same would be true of gravitons. But one respondent indicated that general relativity can't do a second quantization like electromagnetism, and therefore gravitons are... suspect? Impossible? Not proven? It wasn't clear to me how strongly to take that statement.
I also saw that stackx discussion when I asked the question and Google'd it. But I was surprised by the fact that while I'd seen in social media, QA, etc this question had been asked before, I was looking for something of a longer or more authoritative source that was accessible to people outside of academic study.
I think the downvote brigaiding on this thread is coming from a particular set of users.
I noticed my karma is jumping down in waves. Unrelated comments are all being downvoted at the same time, suggesting unlikely coincidence or that some users are clicking on my profile and going through downvoting all the comments.
My wife got her start as an attorney in the U.S. and her first criminal cases as defense counsel were for drunk divers. It ended up driving (no pun) her away from defense work, because these guys were inveterate offenders and never got more than a slap on the wrist. The penalties on the books for DUI and the penalties actually administered are often miles apart. That may have changed in the last decade though, I can’t say.
What do you consider a slap on the wrist? Everyone I know that’s had a DUI lost their license for a min amount of time with exponential increases for repeat offenders (one month, then two years, then 10 years). And that’s only the ones that weren’t involved in a collision.
Seriously in Denmark you get 20 days suspended prison if your are above 2.0 for a first offense. If you are above 1.2 you lose your license for a minimum of 3 years. If below 2, your fine is "only" your net salary for the month....
Anecdotal, but I can confirm this as well. I've had extended family members get pulled over for (multiple!) DUIs while getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Nothing's really changed as long as you're of a certain demographic.
Everybody I know in California who got a DUI got quite penalized--it definitely stopped all of them cold so they would never have to go through the penalties again.
Maybe you can get away with DUI in the country club crowd, but certainly not lower than that.
Taleb calling someone else an entertainer is a bit rich, sort of like a clown telling someone to have dignity. I have no opinion on Silver whatsoever, but Taleb is a bloviating ass who has gone from popular milquetoast observations, to climbing fully up his own backpassage. That this all began with the likes of Dinesh D’Souza doesn’t help.
I realize that Black Swan is popular here, but it was horrendous. A single essential premise which, instead of support, rested for chapter after chapter on assertions. That’s not evidence, it wasn’t an argument, it was the sound of someone having one good idea and then realizing they lacked the capacity to support it.
We should have sympathy for victims, without letting them be in charge of policy decisions. That pain leads to the opposite of rationality. It’s up there with “think of the children” arguments in terms of harm that can be done.
Maybe “despite” was a typo for “as a direct result of,” in the article? Or maybe it’s just the usual Bloomberg nonsense. The whole interview reads like apologia. Oh it’s the legal teams of the pharmaceutical industry, rather than their lobbying efforts having fully purchased the loyalty of a majority of members from both parties. Get it? Congress is the victim here, not a goddamned co-conspirator.
So yes, it seems at least some of them can.