Unlike typical ballistic warheads, which fly on predictable trajectories as they fall from space to their targets, hypersonic projectiles can change course, making them more difficult to target.
The author doesn't understand what they are writing about. Hypersonic has nothing to do with manuevering, it's a speed definition. Anything traveling at Mach 5+ is considered hypersonic. Western countries already have access to systems that defend against hypersonic missiles. The ability to change direction has nothing to do with being hypersonic.
The state cannot start being allowed to make determinations about what religious groups may and may not adopt children. Thats fundamentally on so many levels not fucking ok.
We can and should as long as it’s based on relevant behavior not religious affiliation. If you don’t believe in using proscribed antibiotics you should not be caring for kids, for example. I don’t care if it’s because your god told you they were evil or because you think your healing crystals are better.
the determination should be based on your ability to care for the child emotionally, physically and psychologically. if you can’t do all 3, then you’re unfit to be a parent.
I feel we need to look at AI as a consumer tool and not a production tool. We shouldn’t have it write “original stories” but use it as a fun feature to rewrite content we purchase.
Basically the consumer buys the original content and are free to mod the content to their liking, much like a PC game.
Don’t like the ending… have AI write a different one for fun.
I guess trees aren’t as profitable… Only places these things make sense is where you have an abundance of energy to use. Such as Iceland where they using geothermal
Im too lazy to look up, but as i understand trees dont remove as much as youd think. I remember one of these plants claimed they could remove CO2 to the equivalent of 1 million trees
I would like to be proven wrong but to me it just sounds like a sales pitch from some techbros. I believe it when I see it. “A better climate strategy, Jacobson says, would be to simply spend the money on building out renewable energy faster, so that coal and natural gas electricity plants can be retired more quickly”
I’m sure they’re hoping it cleans the air of people telling them to “do something” about “climate change” and let them get back to giving huge giveaways to oil companies.
Seriously, I might be wrong but last I knew carbon capture tech wasn’t anywhere near good enough. How long would this thing have to run to do much as break even on the emissions building it caused?
Except that’s not what the article actually says. It says the carbon either goes to make concrete or gets pumped and stored underground. It does not get burned for energy.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.