Eh? All of Tesla’s ideas that actually worked made it into the marketplace. The ones that didn’t are now historical curiosities. Giving everyone energy for free wasn’t going to be possible, and his wireless system to do so was never going to work like he imagined because it was based on a flawed understanding of physics.
In support of my argument that we have too much tech, it dawned on me the other day that tech has evolved to the point where millions of people can be locked in their homes with the click of a mouse.
My wife uses Siri on her phone and one day she said “Alexa” instead of “Siri”. I came running out of the man cave to see if she was trying to hook up one of those damn things. 
Scary technology
Its a WEF video too
[ It's here whether you like it or not! Capitalise on it #heatwave #hotw... | TikTok ]
There’s a bit of oversell there. They can’t decode maths formula somebody is thinking about… jeez.
There’s a voice recognition AI thing I’ve used that gives a clue. It’s faster and more accurate when it’s looking for a set list of commands.
I don’t doubt the AI she talks about can decode a PIN number if it knows I’m visualizing a PIN number in a lab setting, but touch typing it on a keypad from almost subconscious memory while thinking about chocolate and the dodgy guy with the dog behind me… I doubt it.
Scary. Is this what starlink is really about?
I hadn’t heard of Havana Syndrome before. Interesting point in that Pyschology Today article:
One puzzling element is that my own research shows that the limits of safe exposure to RF radiation are much lower in Russia and several other Eastern countries than they are in the U.S. It seems that Russia has done experiments showing that there is toxicity for the brain if exposed to low levels of RF energy (for example, 0.1 watts per square meter) for more than three hours. Comparatively, the limit of toxicity by U.S. standards is 10 watts per square meter (100 times more than in Russia).
Surely we should be erring on the side of caution there.
Interesting. Did any of those Reddit morons and the like bother to find out who and what culture they’d be up against, really? Obviously they listened to the drumshills and got their sorry arses handed to them.
I know Russian competitors have been banned from all sorts of things lately, but 2022 was won by MIT with Russian institutions still featuring in the results. So they weren’t banned but barely scraped into the top 10 with Moscow ranked a measly 26th.
Seems like something changed.
They are apparently moving away from the Western style university degree accreditation system back to their original system. Dunno the details.
I don’t know if this sort of engine has been done before, but it looks pretty nifty.
One problem I see with it is using the pistons to close the exhaust ports, where I would think there would be carbon buildup on the sides of the pistons in that area which closes the exhaust ports, which might be scrubbing the hell out of the cylinder walls.
So it’s a two stroke opposed piston engine with a “wavy thing”?
Progression of robot mobility over the last decade
[ #vi #ia #inteligênciaartificial #chatgpt #tecnology | boston dynamics | TikTok ]
Looks nifty, shame he accuses them of fraud in the end without asking them. If they are saying that those are the results without forced air then the car having a compressor in it is a separate thing he should have asked about.
Maybe the figures are a lot higher with that?
Calling it a 1 stroke engine is already fraud. Making stuff up to make the engine sound more novel or impressive.
They didn’t come up with that name themselves, that was whoever that ICE org was that they mentioned.
I’m confused as to what your point is. Maybe I’m missing something?
It’s OK that they use a misleading name because they claim someone else suggested it?
Apologies if you were just pointing that out as a bit of trivia.
It’s a registered trademark, you could say your engine use patented ZeroStroke® technology if you wanted to do that. That another engineering org came up with the term shows that other people aren’t as trigger happy with claims of fraud either.
You assume, on the word of a company that is using terms they know don’t accurately describe their product. Like selling a car with Patented Porsche Turbocharged Engine® Technology, that has no turbo.
Calculated to make people think it’s more than it really is.
And, yes, you can get in trouble for that. Being a trademarked name doesn’t absolve you of all responsibility.
I’m not terribly impressed with their excuses either. Don’t want people to think it uses a fuel oil mixture like other two strokes? Two stroke marine diesels don’t either, and they don’t call themselves one stroke engines. Neither did the Napier Deltic opposed piston two stroke engines.