I would just like them farther apart. On my tablet it’s way too easy to hit the wrong one, or ignore, or both, or even all 3 at the same time.
@lucky760, can that go on the list for the next iteration (assuming there is one)? Just a bit more separation of the up/down buttons.

I erased your mistaken vote with mine @BSR

The best passwords are a series of random words put together.

This makes a password not guessable by a human, too long to iterate over for a robot, while still being easy to remember.

There's something called Diceware which takes a list of thousands of random words and you're supposed to roll some dice to get a few words together:

https://diceware.dmuth.org/

That just generated for me this 6-word password (which I'm not going to use obviously):

IrateBarometerHeaderDeserveBackslidJustness

Oh yes I take ITER as good news, but it still leaves us 20 - 40 years from a... well I wanted to write a commercial fusion plant, however that might be a trifle optimistic.

Lets say we are at best 20-40 years from a functional prototype of a commercialy viable plant.

ITER is very much a test, any way you bend it. DEMO is waiting for ITERs outcome. Of course ITER will work, tokamaks have operated since the 1960s, that is like claiming a rocket will almost certainly fly. Yet we still stand in awe when it does.

It took 50 years from Einsteins nearly blind-guess prediction of a physical phenomenon to fission power plants. 50 years from the Orvilles hops to jet passenger planes. 58 years from Ciolkovskys crazy drawings to a man in space. In my grandfathers lifetime we went from horse-drawn carriages to the SR-71.
In my lifetime we have gone from landing on the moon to almost maybe landing there again some time.

We are slowing down or the going is getting more difficult.

Good news and bad news then. ITER isn't really a 'test', science wise it's pretty much assured that it is gonna work. So that's good news. The bad news, this thing is also as small as current known science allows us to make it while still producing usable power. Economically, it's already completely and totally unusable. Thus the hope is to make more new discoveries running this to find ways to make it economically viable.

Wow, thats a new iteration on ding dong ditch lol.

How far we have come. *related=https://videosift.com/video/Assembly-of-the-worlds-largest-fusion-reactor-ITER-begins

ITER Tokomak- the world's largest puzzle has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Assembly of the worlds largest fusion reactor (ITER) begins has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

For a 9 month employment, getting the start year and end year wrong by one year each, and not mentioning the true start date was late December, that's a pretty big lie to start with.

I've heard nothing of this alleged Larry King call....link? No recording, or any details that don't match her first iteration of this constantly morphing story? ...don't bother mentioning it or it just sounds like desperation.

Um....1) Ford had written contemporaneous notes about her attack.
2) Ford's FIRST HAND WITNESSES, not people she told a story years later, were mostly NOT HEARD, AND WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

Yes, the double standard is quite conspicuous....but it's the Right's blatant double standard.

One likely attack with a credible professional accuser, multiple first hand witnesses unheard and contemporary evidence is ignored and denied even a full hearing, and one changing accusation of a totally unbelievable public attack in the halls of congress made by a non credible accuser with no witnesses, no evidence, and who never brought up her attack before even though her attacker has had constant elections for high office including VP twice...even when she was part of a group making other public accusations against the same man, her accusations are to be believed?!

You really have some nerve implying the double standard comes from the Left here. Such bullshit.

MAYBE she exaggerates?!? There's no MAYBE about it. Everything about her claims scream political lie from a proven liar. I can't fathom why anyone ever listened to her unbelievable story except out of desperation, needing so badly to have a Biden abuse story to counter Trump's decades long history of real abuses, both on tape and bragged about in multiple interviews like forcing his way into dressing rooms at his beauty pageants to ogle underage girls as they dress, trying hard to Fuck his friend's wives while he's married, forcibly finger banging any woman he finds attractive, all the way to multiple rape cases in court now.

@newtboy,

"Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic."

I'm just glad they stick to metric, with sea level rise you don't even get that .

"No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report."

At least temperature wise the AR1 report had higher temperatures, and definitely higher worst case projection scenarios for temp than the latest. I can't say I checked their sea level projections, though typically they're other projections have followed on using their temps as the baseline for the other stuff and thus they track together. That is to say, if you can point me a source that reliably claims otherwise I might go check, but currently what I have checked tells me otherwise.

"I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine."

Which is fine, I only object if that gets characterized as the factually scientific 'right' approach.

"The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements."

Which is yet another source and calibration period from what I found. The 1901-2000 very, very roughly speaking can be thought of as centered on 1950, so in that fuzzy feeling sense not surprising it's 0C is colder than the IPCC centered on the nineties.

The source on current instrumental I went against is below:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As for 2018 being cooler than 2017, that's pretty normal. 1996/1997 were the hottest years on record for a pretty long time before things swung back up. It's entirely possible we stay below the recent high years for another bunch of years before continuing to creep up. Same as a particularly cold day isn't 'evidence', the decadal and even century averages are where the signal comes out of the noise.

You are correct, I was using NOAA numbers, not realizing they use a different start point to compare from. I honestly thought both would use 1890, pre industrial era start points, since that's what the 1.5C limit is based on. Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic.

No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report. You can accept their current estimate, that's better than the average person. I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine.

I have no horse in this race. I hit my best by date next year, and don't have kids...got fixed in my 20's. What happens after 2050 isn't my concern, and I have no problem if humanity goes extinct. It's all the other life we will take with us, or worse, that we survive as the last species standing, that gets me upset.

Another entrant in the incredibly long line of adaptation / adaptive learning / intelligent systems / artificial intelligence demonstrations that aren't. The agents act based on a set of rules / freedoms/constraints prescribed by a human. The agents "learn" based on the objective functions defined by the human. With enough iterations (how many times did the narrator say "millions" in the video) . Sure, it is a good demonstration of how adaptive learning works, but the hype-fog is getting a big thick and sickening folks. This is a very complex optimization problem being solved with impressive and current technologies, but it is certainly not behavioural intelligence.

All you mention are a far cry from sustained hypersonic powered atmospheric flight, which is what we're talking about here.

You mentioned a ramjet, but scramjet engines are hardly an incremental improvement, they're an entirely different class of jet engine. Ramjet engines only do around mach 2.5- 5, scramjets 4-8+ theoretically. What's needed for a viable weapon imo is the next iteration of dual mode ramjets that can do both with one engine, that's a long way off. Public scramjet engine tests have only been successful in a few short 5 second+- burns so far, launched with conventional solid rockets.

I liked the movie adaptation. That said, if you have seen the various iterations of Ghost in the Shell, they don't seem tied to any common theme other than the basic one of whether or not a person's ghost (soul,id) can remain intact in a body that is heavily changed with cybernetics. The live action movie held that theme as well.

i used nuke, which isn't designed for generative images. conceptually, this is fairly simple. just a several iterations of the same concept and then a stack of filters.