jimbolauski

joined 2 years ago
[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

Formula E times appear close because the tracks are different, take Monaco which is the same: F1 1:10.2, FE 1:29.7, F3 1:24.9

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Of the big lies the competitors to electric propulsion successfully spread is that hybrid is what’s making the engines heavy. It’s not. In F1 the ICE is over 100kg without the energy store (=fuel) whereas is hybrid unit is 20kg including energy (=battery).

In F1 the hybrid electric system is ment to augment the ICE, could not be soley deployed for a whole lap, or have the power to reach top speeds on a long strait. Comparing the two is intellectually dishonest.

The formula E cars have less range, lower top speed, and weigh almost 300kg more. It's not a conspiracy, it's where battery technology currently is.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago

Marko got a hard on for Lawson because he was on Marko's approved nationality list and overestimated his capability. Their arrogance blinded them to how shitty their car is and how difficult it is for an inexperienced driver to handle. They shit the bed and are lying it, it's too bad they pulled Lawson into their slurry pit.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago

To be fair to Ferrari most of their blunders are strategy related, driver wise Barrichello was their worst pick in the last 25 years.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

As a bears fan that lives near Cincinnati, the Rogers train wreck pulling into Pittsburg will bring me so much joy. The bears have Pittsburg at home this upcoming season and nothing would make me happier than a shitty Pittsburg with a cancerous Rogers getting demolished.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago

Boeing has put a bunch of flight hours on the experiential version, how well that translates to a production version who knows. If LM doesn't challenge then it's pretty clear Boeing's prototype was significantly better.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago

A human can't handle negative Gs, a computer can. That alone gives uavs a huge maneuver advantage.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

Yes, if you imagine the vehicle as covered in a mirror, areas where you could see yourself will have the highest return. Shape is the most important thing with stealth.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The canards are probably visible for 270 degrees by a ground radar, the tail probably around 90.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Breaks in continuity of the skin will cause issues. Canards are huge breaks, you go from air to a conductive surface back to air.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago (4 children)

They’re talking about avoiding legal liability, not about actually doing the right thing. And of course you can see how it would help them avoid legal liability. The lawyers will walk into court and honestly say that at the time of the accident the human driver was in control of the vehicle.

The plaintiff's lawyers would say, the autopilot was engaged, made the decision to run into the wall, and turned off 0.1 seconds before impact. Liability is not going disappear when there were 4.9 seconds of making dangerous decisions and peacing out in the last 0.1.

[–] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

Encrypted data, all classified data that is transmitted over commercial networks must use approved encryption tools that conform to specific encryption standards.

view more: ‹ prev next ›