I mean that just means you didn’t hack them well enough.

There’s also STAR https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STAR_voting

I’d also say weapon/spell/tool selection as well. They just don’t really care about their UI.

If he turned it into a generator and powered a heat pump he could get 2-3x the heat energy than he generates.

Feel like this is what Fisker should’ve tried. The Ocean had the right hardware but it seemed like they spent too much effort on their infotainment instead of getting the basics right. Then target the sub-$30k market with a car that drives well with decent range and fewer gimmicks that just works.

Pokémon Puzzle League! Building up all the chains felt amazing! It’s a feeling I’ve tried to recreate it other similar games but haven’t found one with such a great implementation.

France’s baseline is nuclear and has been for decades.

Aren’t fluorescent bulbs the ones that flicker?

I agree about the color temperature.

What’s wrong with LED lights?

They probably should’ve gone with simpler software and focused more on the fundamentals. Like they could be forgiven for not having all the self driving features at launch but an unreliable key is pretty bad.

And the lesson is that they probably should’ve blown up more rockets on purpose rather than lose them on accident.

The Falcon 9 has the largest number of successful launches of any rocket ever by a large margin.

I think more research should be done as it may interact with the interstitium which is a relatively new discovery and may provide a scientific explanation.

So the plug actually opened as the pressure differential was switching from positive to negative (the cabin pressure was lower than the atmospheric pressure). If it was already at altitude the plug would have stayed in place. But due to the missing fasteners the switch between pressures knocked it loose.

The issue is yeah there’s one graph that’s not great but there’s also decades of research following the original publication that is not addressed.

Here is my reply from a few weeks ago after I had watched the movie:

Watched it over the weekend and was rather underwhelmed. It felt “cheap” compared to Fury Road. The CGI was quite terrible in comparison, especially when they showed some scenes from the last movie during credits. It’s just so obvious they paid less detail to the effects and it seemed like a significant decrease in their use of practical effects. Add to that some of the effects were just plain bad. AND worse of all

Also there was just too much talking. Fury Road was great because the world building was done without extra dialog. Furiosa just felt like any other Hollywood film with nothing special at all.

The budget was higher than Fury Road? Why did the whole movie look so cheap then?

I’ve been following them for a while now and hope they can make it into production. Their focus on efficiency and repairability is quite exciting!

It looked like they just cut their effects budget by a lot. The green screen work was terrible and super apparent. The motorcycles would be obviously riding in a studio instead of on sand (just look at them not affected by any bumps).

A bunch of the CGI was just super obvious and in some places poorly done.

And then the plot had the random love interest and most of the dialogue was bad.

And worst of all

Then at the end when they show scenes from the last movie, it was just so obvious how bad the effects were in comparison!

In theaters: Furiosa. Very meh and disappointing compared to Fury Road (which is IMO the best action movie ever).

You could probably use most sands or rocks, it’s just cheaper to start with more silicon dioxide since the purification processes will result in higher yields.