thegagis t1_jc9eq9e wrote

Typical assault rifles fire fairly low power rounds, such that they can't be reliably used to hunt big game, so you could probably sell it to an audience even if you don't really know if it would actually work.

So its more about how modern soldiers are equipped with a very large number of fairly small ammunition than about properties of the skull.


thegagis t1_j5nlf4y wrote

You can MEASURE the spin or charge of an entangled pair, but altering it to a spesific outcome means you break the entanglement. The FTL communication is properly impossible.

It may have uses in quantum computing or cryptography, but communication it is not.


thegagis t1_j4bqnte wrote

Its unfalsifiable at least for now. Perhaps we will eventually run into some phenomenon that makes more sense if one intrepretation of quantum mechanics is true compared to the others. For now most physcists follow the "shut up and calculate"-intrepretation.

I have absolutely no clue what your disney angle has to do with the many worlds intrepretation of quantum mechanics. This part of your message seems to make absolutely no sense.


thegagis t1_j1o927m wrote

We have a lot of type 1 diabetes and genetic propensity for coronary artery disease plus some unique inheritable diseases. The small gene pool combined with easily traceable diseases and really extensive church records of births going back many centuries means Finland is a gold mine for people who research human genetics.

I seem to have fortunately dodged both of the diabetes and CAD bullets.


thegagis t1_j1nl18o wrote

The number of alleles that can be found in the gene pool of the population.

Us Finns for example descend from a very small number of survivors of some ancient famine and each of our genes can be one of only the few alleles that those survivors happened to carry and no other alleles. Our gene pool is one of the smallest as a direct consequence of that ancient bottlenecking event.


thegagis t1_j1n9vh1 wrote

To some extent, yes. Unless I'm totally mistalen the distances of some stellar objects are very accurately known but some are fairly rough estimates. So the overall shape is probably very well fixed by the most accurate bits but the details are a bit fuzzy.


thegagis t1_j1mhaub wrote

We have more or less accurate measurements for directions and distances of many of the stars and nabulae that make up the milky way.

The rest is just drawing a map, just like islands and continents in ye olden days before satellites.


thegagis t1_izyo1t9 wrote

Yeah, unfair advantages make for bad stories or bad games.

Real life warfare is all about stacking up as many and as unfair advantages as you possibly can. This applies troughout history up to this day. Makes it hard to sometimes remember that its something that storytelling and game design deliberately get wrong.


thegagis t1_izwoiwv wrote

If I remember correctly, of the 8000ish english in the battle of Agincourt some 1 to 2 thousand wore heavy armour, since it indeed was expensive troughout history.

However, it was also so damn effective, that it was a worthwhile investment to protect any warriors who have enough training to make them worth protecting, since all that training itself was an extremely valuable investment too. Modern testing indicates that armour was typically extremely effective at protecting against blows from all sorts of weapons and an armoured warrior had a tremendous advantage against any unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents.

Modern testing also shows that you can move fairly nimbly and fast in heavy armour, it doesn't weigh much more than the loadout of a modern soldier, and is distributed more evenly across your body after all. For cavalry this is even less of an issue, since you have a horse to carry yours and your equipment's weight with.

Main hindrance caused by armour is how it moves your center of gravity from your belly up to your chest, which takes practice to get used to and can make moving in very difficult terrain tricky.


thegagis t1_iulmo3x wrote

Its unrealistic with physics. If entropy was not a thing, you could at best get exactly as much energy back as you used to boil the water with. In reality some of the energy is always wasted and depending on how good your generator is you get some % below 100% out as electricity.

Water is simply not a source of energy. Boiling water requires more energy than you can get by using the pressure of boiled water to drive a generator. Steam is just a way to move that energy from point A to point B.


thegagis t1_iullan1 wrote

Its nowhere near self sustaining.

Turning water into steam USES absolutely massive amounts of energy. You need to constantly produce amazing amounts of heat to be able to do that.

Replenishing the water is not an issue, you can just direct the condensed water from the steam cooling back down back to the system.

This is how power plants work. They burn some fuel or run a nuclear reactor to convert massive amounts of energy into heat to heat water which turns into steam and that steam rotates a turbine with its pressure and the turbine rotates a generator.

Steam is not a source of energy, it is a local temporary storage for energy.


thegagis t1_is56vru wrote

Not really. There is a fairly small number of algorithms applicable to quantum computers and for anything else classical computers are better. Maybe there is an application in some specific signal processing problem for astronomy but the field of quantum computing isn't really related to space travel at all.