Messages

[turn the radio on]

I like where this is going, and am looking forward to future installments.

I fire the explosive pins in the car's frame, trigger the air bags, and turn the radio on.

Turning the radio on is a nice touch.  The reason for it is obvious in hindsight, but the incongruity made my brain hit a speedbump.


However, you did trigger my OCD:

The first scenario leaves Daniel with a 90% chance of surviving, but leaves the other driver with only a 20% chance of survival, for best-case outcome odds of  .27.  The second scenario gives both drivers a 60% chance of survival, with best-case outcome odds of .36.

0.6*0.6 = 0.36,  0.9*0.2 = 0.18.  Did you have the other driver with a 30% chance of survival in an earlier draft?  Am I making a mistake in assuming that the appearance of statistical independence in scenario 2 implies the same in scenario 1?  Or am I just another asshole obsessed with irrelevant minutiae?

I'm also not sure if an AI would use the probability of both parties surviving as the optimization goal, as opposed to the expected number of survivors (0.9+0.2 = 1.1 for scenario 1, 0.6+0.6 = 1.2 for scenario 2).

Neither target is really satisfactory, though.  For example:
Scenario 3: {driver 1: 100%}, {driver 2: 0%}
Scenario 4: {driver 1: 90%}, {driver 2: 10%}

If we maximize the probability of both surviving as the goal, then we would pick scenario 4 (.09) over scenario 3 (0.0).  If we maximize the expected number of survivors, we wouldn't know which to pick (the answer is 1.0 for both).

However, scenario 3 is arguably better, because one person is guaranteed to live, while in scenario 4, there is a 0.09 chance of both dying.

I'm gonna think about this for a bit.

Early-stage senile dementia is as good an explanation as any.

Not unless he's had it since he was 22.

I just surfed youtube a bit, so I could present some evidence that Trump once had something resembling a command of the English language, and that his lack of vocabulary was indicative of recent mental decay.

I stand corrected.  It appears that he always talked like this.

He doesn't even drink, so this is inexplicable.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-reportedly-tries-to-call-world-leaders-at-odd-hours-and-has-to-be-reminded-of-different-time-zones-on-a-constant-basis/ar-BBLSvMC?ocid=spartanntp

Early-stage senile dementia is as good an explanation as any.

Optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm.

If I were Canada, I'd be looking at Germany right now.  And Saudis would get zero trade.  Like none at all.

Sounds like a good idea, but I think we still have an ongoing $15 billion dollar contract to sell the Saudis some armoured vehicles.

It was set up by the previous Conservative government in 2014, but the Liberals carried through with it, because "a contract's a contract" or something.  (Way to take a strong stance on human rights, there.)

I'm curious to see how that is going to play into all this.  I'm hoping the contract is cancelled outright, but I'm well past expecting consistent behaviour from my fellow humans.

And, in addition to resources and the environment, we also need backup civilizations out of ICBM range so everything isn't wiped out when one of the shitheads in charge of the world hits the big red button

I find it hard to conceive of a nuclear war that would make Earth less habitable than Mars (or the Moon).  Even if you take into account nuclear winter, massive fallout, large sections of geography glassed over, 99% extinction rate, it's not as if nuclear war would actually rip the atmosphere off the planet.  There's a pretty big difference between "if you leave the bunker without protection, you might die of cancer in six months" to "if you leave the base without a space suit, you'll asphyxiate in 60 seconds".

No, I don't think we should go to Mars with any practical objectives in mind.  Someone is going to need to make up some sort of plausible justification to generate the necessary political will, but I doubt the reasons will be legitimate.

I think we should go to Mars just for the lulz.  Humanity needs to get out of the house once in a while, try new things.  We can figure out if there were any tangible benefits afterward.

I can't argue with this sort of superior logic.

When you spend six months designing and building a 200-ton robot monster, only to discover that a roomba with a salad fork duct-taped to it would have worked just as well, you think about these things.

Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against dirigibles. But, steam punk is a whole different genre. If we're going to go that route, then someone should have told me that in the first place.

The fleet of dirigibles was just an example.  The OP clearly has some sort of problem, which he believes can be solved by flinging a nuclear plant with a catapult.  However, before we spend too much effort on this, we need to stop and determine if there is a better way to accomplish the OP's real objective, which he hasn't stated.

We also need to consider questions such as:

Is the plant being flung to somewhere, or away from somewhere?  What are the accuracy requirements?  Would it be acceptable to dismantle the plant, fling the individual components, and then reassemble it at site?  (Hurling one building at a time would help reduce the scale of equipment required).

Why a catapult in particular?  Has using rocketry and/or explosives to put the plant into a sub-orbital trajectory been considered?  I've already expressed my preference for dirigibles, but if the hurling part isn't strictly necessary, very large flat-bed trucks might also be appropriate.

Nuclear power hasn't been very popular lately.  Why not fling a solar power installation, instead?

Of course, if hurling a nuclear plant is the objective in itself, then this analysis is unnecessary, although Brother Mythos does have some good points, and it would make sense to do a comparative study of catapults vs. trebuchets prior to proceeding.

It would help if you explained the root problem you're trying to solve.  I mean, depending on what you want, it might make more sense to transport the plant by lifting it with a fleet of dirigibles.
Catapults aren't very accurate over long distances...

I can't see a whole lot of practical value in colonizing Mars, or in interstellar travel.

But I think we should try, anyway.

Why?  Because space is awesome.  To hell with profitability, and screw common sense.  What with the imminent heat death of the universe, humanity is doomed anyway, so let's go as big as we can before it all turns to ash.

If anyone wants me, I'll be playing video games.

Components:

1 pound stir-fry grade beef, sliced thin, but not too thin.  (beef hip works well)
1/2 cup cornstarch
2 cups carrots, julienned
1/2 cup some kind of onion, chopped
3ish cloves garlic, minced
3 tablespoons fresh ginger, grated
2 tablespoons sesame seeds
2 tablespoons sesame oil
1 teaspoon black pepper
1/2 cup brown sugar
1/4 cup soy sauce
1/4 cup vinegar
1/4 cup vegetable oil (for cooking)
3 cups vegetable oil (for frying)

Sequence:

Coat the beef strips in the cornstarch.
Put 1/4 cup of oil in a pan, and cook the onions for a minute or two, until they're a bit translucent.
Add the carrots, and cook until they soften slightly (2-3 min)
Add the garlic and ginger, and stir.  Cook for another minute.
Add the soy sauce, vinegar, and sesame oil, and then the brown sugar, black pepper, and sesame seeds.  Stir it a bit, then turn the temperature down to a low simmer.  Don't worry about reducing the sauce, overcooking it just diminishes the flavour.

Put the 3 cups of oil in a deep pot, and heat the oil to 350-375F.  Put the beef into the oil, a few strips at a time.  Remove each piece just after it becomes slightly crispy; this will coincide with a reduction in the effervescence surrounding that piece of beef.  It depends on the size of the piece, but this shouldn't take more than three minutes.  You'll need to adjust the batch size and cooking heat in order to keep the oil temperature between 350 and 375F.

Combine the beef with the sauce, and consume according to the customs of your people.

Disclaimer:  I plagiarized this from some guy's web page.  By following this recipe instead of his, you're stealing his advertising dollars.  But, his recipe doesn't have anywhere near enough ginger, it's too salty, he doesn't really explain the frying process, and you have to wade through a thousand word essay.

As a relative n00b at cooking, here are some things that should be obvious, but weren't (to me):

Use a sharp knife to chop the onion.  A serrated knife probably isn't the best choice.
Wash your hands after working with the garlic.  Immediately.  You don't want to marinate your finger-meat.
Don't turn the heat on the frying oil up to maximum right away, it will get spattery.
Do the deep-frying in short sleeves.  If this results in flashes of pain, you're doing something wrong.

See, even I'm not sure if they're anti-Trump protestors doing the Russia thing for the lulz, or they're actually pro-Trump supporters doing the Russia thing to Trigger Teh Libs.

Yes, it really has come to this.

You were convicted in absentia.

You have already been sentenced.

My main issue was with powering 100 stories purely from solar.  Four stories worth seems more in the range of common sense.  It's not as if conventional agriculture has a 100x sunlight surplus.

A nuclear-powered arcology might be a good way to proceed if we ever need to colonize Antarctica...

It should be a capital offense to own, operate, work at, or view from afar any farm that isn't a 100+ story self-sufficient solar-powered skyscraper using the latest in hydroponic technology.

Since solar power scales with area, and power usage scales with volume (proportional to the height of the skyscraper), this seems counter-intuitive.  What numbers are you using in your power budget that gets you to 100 stories?

I have a sizable vegetable garden, and rent out two quarters of land.  I'd rather not be killed over an engineering error.