No one cares about war crimes since years, US itself is allied in this war with credibly alleged war criminals. Besides, there's much to do against drones reaching a base other than locking down the gear in reinforced building and that's not practical when the gear is used which means whatever is on the open gets blown up. The Russians were putting tires on the wings, it did not help much.
I know no one cares, rather I was explaining why this Iranian hit is not a demonstration of any great success, they were hitting an unprotected target, in a non-US base.
Free VPN's are usually funded by agreeing to route some VPN traffic for other people though your own network. They basically work as mixers, randomizing traffic throughout the VPN population.
This can expose users to legal risks, but but can also add plausible deniability at the same time "it wasn't me, it was someone on VPN".
I’ve suspected that’s where these “ethical” (as they like to call it) residential proxy services get their access from. They’re really dodgy about it other than saying the people agree to it, which ya ok.
It's not stable, and no it's not theoretically possible.
A proton is the lightest stable baryon, and thus the only only stable one. It's not a coincidence - in particle physics if a lighter elementary particle is possible the heavier one will ALWAYS decay into it. "Whatever is not forbidden is mandatory." (Combination particles like atoms are more complicated because there are other things that might force the particle to exist.)
The closest example I can remember is that you can have atoms with muons instead of electrons for a shot time ~2.2E-6 seconds, that is a pretty long time for for an unstable particle. You can do some chemistry in that "long" time. (Can you put a muon around a heavy atom like gold and get some extra time for special relativity corrections?)
If you want to replace protons, I guess you can try with "strange" particles instead of "charmed" particles. The difference of mass is small, like only a 10% more instead of a x4 increase. In particular, the sigma particle (up+up+strange) has a half life of ~2E-10 seconds that is shorter than the half life of a muon but much longer that the half life of this new particle. (I can find the number, but let me handwave a ~~~1E-22 seconds(???).)
This is significant because binding 2 heavy quarks together is very hard to do because they decay so fast.
All the particles made from just 3 light quarks have been found. And I think all of the ones made with 1 heavy quark and 2 light ones have also been found.
This is only the 2nd particle made from 2 heavy quarks that has ever been found.
It's not a coincidence that both of those were made with charm quarks, because charm quarks are the lightest of the heavy ones.
None made of 3 heavy quarks has been found (yet).
Also: A particle made with a top quark is not possible - it decays too quickly.
Water is a solvent. Not sure where you get that it's not.
From the closing of the first graph in the Wiki for water: Due to its presence in all organisms, its chemical stability, its worldwide abundance, and its strong polarity relative to its small molecular size, water is often referred to as the "universal solvent"
Edit: after enough searching I was finally able to find this article [0] that I was originally trying to find. The leaching part was right, but the bleaching part looks to have been as misremembered
You misread what I wrote. Water is the same solvent as both regular water and ultrapure, I was replying to the ultrapure part.
Also: I appreciate you found a source, unfortunately it's not true what they said. It's not possible to "leech nutrients through the hair to the scalp", the wrench story is not true either - there is zero chance a lab with the standards they have would just leave a wrench at the bottom of the pool - it would contaminate the water. Not to mention the bottom is filled with more of those light tubes, so there is no place for a wrench to sit. (And if someone dropped one it would break a tube.)
I don't know why someone would tell businessinsider such stories, but they are not true.
It's hard when a supposedly reliable news place writes things that are not true, but that's the world we live in. I guess technically they are just quoting stories they were told.
(My personal pet peeve is a news source that made everyone think you can't leave eggs outside the fridge if they were washed, (as they are in the US). This is not true, but "there's a news source".)
I think people might be confusing ultra-pure water with "DI water" (deionized water).
DI water is AN AMAZING SOLVENT. Waaay more powerful at dissolving low-solubility solids than tap water, or even distilled water. It's stunning IRL to see how much better it cleans optical surfaces, where single-molecule layers can visibly change the appearance.
But if left open to the atmosphere, as in these pools, it would soon be just plain old (pure) water. Ultra-clean, but not an ultra-solvent.
Virtually everyone I know is using AI, from helping with creative writing, to making video series, to programming, to homework help, to writing speeches.
And (almost) everyone said how terrible it is - and yet they all use it.
Give it a bit of time for people to understand the limitations, and where it shines and it will become an indispensable part of life.
An excellent analogy would be the shift to gasoline-powered vehicles: yeah, the oil wells were dirty and everyone knew it, smog became a thing, sitting in traffic became a serious problem, and fatal vehicle crashes start happening, yet everyone kept using them.
The idea is that we give up the land tax revenues in exchange for the services the non-profit provides. (And of course the government does not decide which services are useful or not, the people do.)
One thing I might agree with is land tax for non-profits that charge fees for services, as opposed to those who work off of donations. I think that would fix the issue without destroying non-profits.
They attacked a HH-60M Medevac helicopter which is a war crime, and also explains why it wasn't protected.
Also, the radar was Iraqi, although possibly jointly operated with the US.
reply