Even though some of these are pretty old, they look fascinating. The human imagination is really something. That skyscraper bridge would look so badass in real life!
I have a N5 (ya...), and I've found that somedays I'll be getting ready to go home from the office (where I sit like 20ft from a WiFi AP), and find my phone down to ~20-30% battery life - and a quick look at battery stats will happily tell me that my WiFi somehow used up like 50% of my battery. I have no idea whats going on with that... sometimes I can notice while I'm using the phone doing some pretty low power stuff (playing some music...) that the back will just start getting hot. Andddd there I go turning off my WiFi. I have no idea how much this is helping, but I certainly feel dumb having to baby my smartphone like this.
Thats because you have enough thermal mass and evaporative cooling capacity to withstand those temperatures for a short period of time - ie, very little of your body will experience drastically elevated temperatures for long - if at all. Remember that air (even humid air) is not a super great heat conductor - so while the air might be very hot, it's going to be pretty bad transferring that into your body, which in turn has a lot of mass to distrube heat over, and good conductivity to move heat away from contact areas. And that whole sweat thing works pretty well too (especially in a dry sauna).
Being submerged into a 90 degree water bath will probably rapidly hideously wound you and/or kill you.
I wouldn't use 'probably' at all. The level of proof submitted is incredibly light - it only inspects two and a half proteins - and doesn't attempt to inspect the relationship between its proposed mechanism (change in hydration shell density) and protein denaturation.
They show two graphs of protein denaturation curves showing maximum rate change in 50-65 degree range, and a curve of a different protein's hydration shell density changing. At the very least, showing correspondence between hydration shell density and denature curves within a single protein would be significantly more convincing.
While protein folding and interaction is devilishy tricky to compute, the basic idea that injecting extra energy into a system thats held together only by weak hydrogen bonds will disrupt structure and function hardly requires invocation of additional forms of water.
This isn't to say that the claims may not be true. But I would not jump to "probably".
In fact, your quoted statement doesn't even say that proteins become less stable, what the quoted statement says is that a SINGLE protein (lysozyme) undergoes irreversible structural changes over 65 degrees.
We know of a variety of high temperature resistant proteins (Taq Polymerase for example). While is certainly true that most "ordinary" (ie non extremopile) proteins will probably suffer irreversible structural changes in about that temperature change, it's not super great proof.
No, its just too expensive, and probably too heavy.
If OP is right (pretty sure he is), he said that by using something completely free (average weight), we were able to achieve like 50+ years of safe operation of largish commercial airliners. That's amazing.
Also, the problem isn't too much weight per se, it's weight distribution.
Can you clarify what your culture is? And who specifically these out-groups that you worry about are?
I'm not trying to bait you - you're essentially making an argument that relativism in some forms runs into problems when pressed to limits. It's difficult to discuss this without understanding whereabouts you think these limits lie. I don't think anyone can really make an argument about the logical structure of your argument per se, but most will have issues with how you connect various "real world entities" to components of your argument.
In another post I just made an assumption about your beliefs - maybe I was wrong.
And since the OP's culture was clearly a white man's culture - a culture that has been relatively slow to accommodate others, in many ways its still a racist, sexist vision - granted one with unusual bluriness at the edges.
The "real" story is SF has a lower rate of death from heart disease (which is the leading national killer) than usual. And for reference, heart disease and cancer nationally are almost neck and neck (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm)
They are all pluses, but most of those didn't exist till the last couple years. So effectively the first 6 or so years of Python 3 existing had much less incentive.
I think the flip around - ~30% adoption of a newest version at 1-2 years in - especially one that breaks backwards compatibility isn't bad.
I've started numerous python projects at work over the last year all on 2.7. I think we just started the last one. We're finally ready to jump to 3.
Indeed, and ordered dicts come from Py 3.6, which is in beta now and expected for December.
If async and this had been in Py3 from the start, they could've done a far better argument saying "hey, we broke all this stuff, but you get asyinc I/O and faster dicts" (a note of faster dicts: since many classes and language mechanisms use dicts, it should have an encompassing effect on all of python performance -- maybe not 30% or 40% faster, but a few % all around, which is kind of what micro benchmarks are showing with 3.6 betas)
