dalke

101 ms·

811.
by dalke 10y ago
Yes, This is all about self-labeling as I don't think there are any laws which cover what "ex-pat" means. At that level I'm pointing out that your definition is only a partial fit to the existing use. The underlying ques
812.
by dalke 10y ago
I am US citizen living permanently in Sweden who calls myself an immigrant. I did so because I agree with keerthiko. I think "expat" is mostly a code phrase for "I come from a rich country" or "I come from the profe
813.
by dalke 10y ago
You do realize that most US citizens who permanently live outside of the US do not give up their U.S. citizenship. Only a small number renunciations - a few thousand - occur each year. Renunciation has never been a part of the discussion ov
814.
by dalke 10y ago
And like keerthiko, I am disturbed by the easy acceptance of this distinction. The example I mentioned was not a migrant worker doing "rounds". It was under an H-2A agricultural visa to work for a single company in North Carolina.
815.
by dalke 10y ago
Do you consider temporary agricultural workers from Mexico to be expats?
816.
by dalke 10y ago
Do you call a Mexican who comes into the US for 10 months under an agricultural work visa an expat? If so, you are one of the very few. People don't usually talk about, say, "Mexican ex-pats in the Central Valley", even to de
817.
by dalke 10y ago
Your definition is not correct, or at least it's incomplete. There are many retirees who call themselves an "expat", such as those at http://money.cnn.com/gallery/retirement/2014/10/14&#x2F
818.
by dalke 10y ago
Performant is a perfectly valid word which has been part of software engineering since at least the 1990s. "... aiming to provide performant tools ..." (1995) - https://books.google.com/books?id=uZjYdk4bQgkC&pg
819.
by dalke 10y ago
That may be useful if you have a lot of data types and transformations between types. I don't. I do a lot of work with (molecular) graphs, which have two data types: nodes and edges. If you code up a depth-first search which uses an ed
820.
by dalke 10y ago
You still haven't addressed why there are "principal human installations" on Mars in the first place, much less why they are only on one side of the planet, or why the experiments require local human involvement.
821.
by dalke 10y ago
If you like fixed wheeled cycles, great! But this piece uses statements that depend on a survivor bias. Eg, those who stick with a fixed wheeled cycle will be stronger than those who do not. Perhaps it's true - it gives no real evidenc
822.
by dalke 10y ago
There is no such consensus. Downvoting for disagreement has not only been common for years but even explicitly condoned by pg 8 years ago. It isn't in the guidelines because it isn't a guideline.
823.
by dalke 10y ago
Changed? When was it otherwise? There have been comments about downvotes-without-comments for years https://hn.algolia.com/?query=down-voted%20%20no%20replies&s... . Here's an AskHN from 7 years ago titled "As
824.
by dalke 10y ago
It's a poor-quality Space Invaders knock-off, with Trump heads for the aliens.
825.
by dalke 10y ago
Well spotted. There are also ships crossing Spain at other times. My guess is the data points are linearly interpolated, and there were no transponder points for a long period of time.
826.
by dalke 10y ago
Cortexia: the HN guidelines ask "Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase" and "please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait". The original title for this is "
827.
by dalke 10y ago
Why would that interest a potential East India Company-like organization? The best I could come up with would if be it leads to a fuel production source, like the satellite at the end of Heinlein's "Blowups Happen". But we kn
828.
by dalke 10y ago
Yes. But as that link point out, it was years after (and a consequence of) the Einstein–Szilard letter. When did Einstein say nuclear fission was impossible, and how was it Fermi who "promptly proved him dead wrong", as madaxe_aga
829.
by dalke 10y ago
Or a time stasis device, as described by Niven, Vinge, and others.
830.
by dalke 10y ago
Yes, if only Mars were already settled and we could exploit the people there. The question has always been what resource , with 3He and platinum being the two main contenders. Otherwise, it could be like coal mining in Antarctica, or manga
831.
by dalke 10y ago
Which is why Stross ended with: > Anyway, the point I'd like you to take away from this is that while it's really hard to say "sending an interstellar probe is absolutely impossible", the smart money says that it&#x
832.
by dalke 10y ago
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-A > The US-A programme was responsible for orbiting a total of 33 nuclear reactors, 31 of them BES-5 types with a capacity of providing about two kilowatts of power for the rada
833.
by dalke 10y ago
Oh, my! Thank you for the correction. I didn't realize that we also put one into orbit.
834.
by dalke 10y ago
If there's only one engine then that's 236 mN thrust according to your [1]. Lets call it 4.12 N - put a few thrusters on or improve the technology. The station mass is 419,455 kg. F = ma so the acceleration is 1 µ G. It will take
835.
by dalke 10y ago
I'll modify my statement, since "good science" has two meanings. ISS has produced competently done science (one definition of "good"), but at a high prices. The same amount of money spent either on the ground, or on
836.
by dalke 10y ago
ISS reboost is about 0.0185 m/s/s, says https://youtu.be/ZkdfkRC4DbA?t=121 . Delta-V Earth/Mars is 5,748 m/s, says http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appmissiontable..
837.
by dalke 10y ago
There hasn't been much good science out of it yet. I don't think the future will bring much either. If science were our goal we could have done much more science with the same money.
838.
by dalke 10y ago
The problem with LEO is the Earth's atmosphere, while tenuous, is enough to deorbit. Farther orbits are just fine. SNAP-10A, a Soviet nuclear reactor, is in a 1,300-kilometer orbit which won't decay for 4,000 years (estimated). &q
839.
by dalke 10y ago
This confirms what I said. Your continued employed is partially based on the amount of free time you donate to the company. And you don't have a problem with that? Also, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_c
840.
by dalke 10y ago
It's already "a lose" for you, because you are giving the company your free time in order for it to make more profit. When you are burned out after 10 years of working 12 hour days, will the company keep you employed?

More ›