Systems Engineer and Configuration
Management Analyst.

Postgrad degree is in computer science/cybersecurity, but my undergraduate is in archaeology. Someday, maybe, I’ll merge the two fields professionally!

I love true science fiction, as well as all things aviation, outer space, and NASA-related.

Also, Calvin and Hobbes is the best comic strip of all time! Check it out ;)

  • 116 Posts
  • 102 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 3rd, 2023

help-circle





















  • I’m not sure why that’s a conceptual hurdle. Electromagnetic radiation, including the visible light spectrum, is one of the primary methods in which we gather data about and interpret the universe. To say that the matter is “dark” is to say that it’s not detectable on the electromagnetic spectrum to us as we know it.

    It’s not an uncommon turn of phrase, it’s the same reasoning for the colloquial term “going dark” regarding radio communication silence.

    To say that it’s “invisible” or “clear” would imply the existence of some property causing it to be so. This would also imply the presence of interpretable data in order to term it as such, when in truth none exists. You could perhaps say “unknown” but then that’s truly arbitrary, “dark” at least implies the opposite of “light”, i.e. detectable and serves a conjectural purpose in that sense.










  • These are all weak takes imo.

    The designer of much of Hyundai’s current lineup is Luc Donckerwolke, who is famous for his Lamborghini (Diablo, Gallardo and Murcielago) and Audi designs. You may not like them but they’re not “design by committee” derivatives.

    Almost no manufactures are heavily developing their ICE engines anymore, nor do all even produce their own engines (Hyundai/Kia do).

    Much of the “airflow” “issues” you’re talking about are simply price point. The two most impactful areas for sound insulation on cars are undercarriage and wheel wells and door/window frames and seals. For the former, nothing about it is high-tech. Even luxury makes user sound-absorbing materials including plastic deflectors, fabrics, and lightweight low-density filler materials behind panels such as polystyrene. How much sound proofing you get is a reflection of Hyundai’s entry level lineup. You’re not going to get Mercedes-level sound insulation at half the price just because the design looks high-end. It’s not until you’re near the top of luxury car lineups or Rolls/Bentley territory that this area becomes innovative.

    P.S. Hyundai/Kia also hold patents for 2-stroke supercharged engine designs as well as variable compression designs.


  • This is a fair question that is worth discussing. The short answer, is because that generally requires money and resources long-term that are not already available or allocated during the course of the dig.

    Covering exposed features is the only way to “protect” them from the elements, and from the public. Furthermore, it also leaves open the possibility of uncovering them in the future for additional research or examination. This is actually a common practice in archaeology, much more than people realize.

    Which bring us to the fact that the purpose of archaeology as a science, is not to protect every uncovered feature or even every discovered artefact, but to use these materials and their placement in situ to gain knowledge and insight into the human past. As such, the material objects are often of little value unless entirely unique, no museum or archive has endless storage for every object recovered. In fact, artefacts discovered on digs that cannot be added to some collection and are of a known factor, are usually discarded en masse and reburied.

    It’s possible that what you’re suggesting could happen in the future, but that would require planning, funding, and time for it to happen. Without covering up the site now to protect it the way it has been found, there wouldn’t be time for any future planning or funding to even allow that decision.









  • Bear with me here, I’m thinking about all this as a thought experiment…please don’t jump on me all at once :)

    I don’t disagree with you, there is a difference in utility, however what would you say to someone who has two homes? Say a vacation home on a lake? This wasn’t uncommon for persons of older generations (before shit got expensive). Because while two homes may not seem egregious to citizens of highly developed countries, it is, relatively speaking, a true extreme luxury in many parts of the world, perhaps even obscene if you consider those who live in shanty towns or those who are homeless.

    And what about extra cars? Or any other luxury for that matter? Anything that explains why those in less developed countries see middle-class individuals in developed countries as “rich”?

    Now these are nothing in comparison to the several orders of magnitude greater that a billion dollars is, but take them as the best examples I can think of off the top of my head lol.

    Remember marginal utility is relative. My point is that, who decides what defines excess to the point where you’d make the argument you just made? where is the line? Certainly billionaires qualify, but how many millions does one need to hit that threshold? And who makes that determination? The individual with the extreme wealth will have warped perceptions (“It’s one banana, Michael. What could it cost, $10?”), so then it must be the non-wealthy who have insight, if any, or is it all relative?

    I’m not trying to defend or apologise for the ultra-rich, but I think about these things in the sense of: what would I do if I won the mega-millions? Or had some secret unknown relative bestow obscene wealth on me? Never in a million years of course, but I’m the kind of person who likes to have positions that don’t change situationally, I’d like to be confident enough of my beliefs that I’d know what I’d do if the situation were reversed.

    Anyway, thanks for coming to my Ted Talk lol. Again please don’t think i’m trying troll or something, this is a philosophical question for me.