> Deep Space 9

Of course the movie with the whales would fall into this criteria as well.

"Nuclear wessel!"

It doesn't get more present day than your fellow citizens disrespecting you aboard a means of public transportation with loud music.

> And the developer did have to write a post request in C to run from the PC. That’s more than I would have done.

He probably could have written it with ChatGPT or at least bring him above the "can I be bothered to do this" threshold.

Have it build an outline and fill in the specifics and make the necessary corrections. It's like having a very junior coder doing the time consuming typing for you, and then you just have to make corrections to make it work.

Carbon capture using renewable energy should be a factor too.

There are some projects coming along here, for example the Danish Greensand project, but it needs to scale up.

LiFePO4 batteries are safer, because they don't release oxygen easily.

The oxygen bond to phosphorus is much stronger than in traditional EV batteries with cobalt bound to oxygen, which means they can't burn as easily, they aren't affected by higher temperatures and can't have thermal runaways.

So, the battery can get hot and smokey, but that's mostly it.

As far as we understand from anecdotal reports and scattered news articles, build quality problems are mostly from cars built at the Fremont factory, i.e. all Model S and X, all American Model 3 and most American Model Y.

If you buy a Model 3 made in Shanghai, you may get a better car.

Model Y production is about to start up in Texas, which has a better reputation in manufacturing.

I can imagine that every frame had the converter's name in the corner, and he would phone them up at 3 AM to ask them to change something right now.

Edit: Scratch that. He'd fly to their house in a helicopter at 3 AM.

> old enough to remember electric cars in the 80s and 90s, concept cars that is.

I remember the Hope Whisper from 1983. It really ruined a lot of the reputation of EVs and never made it to the production stage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVYX80ZfeU8

Yeah, though I still think the battery itself wasn't the issue. The EV1 was only manufactured in around 2000 units and thus never warranted cost optimization, and its demise just screams politics. All cars were hand built in a facility that built specialty cars, which is very expensive to do.

Even today, tiny electrics with mediocre specs that are hand built, are crazy expensive.

Say Tesla had started everything 7 years earlier, developing the Roadster between 1998 and 2003.

They would have been more limited by the power electronics early on than the batteries. It would have been more expensive, but would have been better positioned for cost optimization, even though it was also hand built.

Power electronics development today is continuing and helps to make modern EVs cheaper and with better specs.

The second generation GM EV1 from 1997 had the same range as an early Nissan Leaf and used NiMH batteries.

Power electronics and production facilities would have been limiting factors, but mostly politics killed early EVs.

EVs were really looked down on back then, even if they could have worked.

I agree with the last sentence, but the first sentence has been written so many times over since 2010, I've lost count.

Considering how long it takes the FAA to certify unleaded fuel, which is supposed to be done by 2030, I can't imagine how long it would take to certify a hydrogen powered plane.

> If you tried to show the full IMAX-format image on your TV, the effect just wouldn't work.

I've never been to an IMAX theatre, but aren't you simply sitting closer to the screen, relatively to its size, compared to a standard screen?

Wouldn't it work the same by sitting closer to your home screen? I get that you still need a big screen at home, and it should be 4-8k at minimum, but I don't see how the effect couldn't be mimicked on a smaller scale.

> Supposedly because it has a lot of false positives sending people to the doctor that don't have any issues.

Worse than that, it shows an actual issue of sorts, but puts the doctor in a position for whether treatment should be done or not, because the patient may be better off with no treatment, because they are young and otherwise healthy.

The patient ends up demanding treatment (surgery) and ends up with a worse quality of life than before, or in very unfortunate cases, end up dying from complications.

What the watch is really doing, is gather a lot of data from mostly healthy, younger people, that don't suffer heart issues that require treatment, i.e. people that such data is normally not gathered data from, because they never needed to.

I don't think we can see the true benefit of the watch until 25 years from now, when we can start mapping out how the heart and cardiovascular system deteriorates as you age and what causes increased deterioration.