It’s more: I have routed a few pipes in our test system and it’s now spitting out water known to be contaminated but now should have some extra sprinkles in so it’s fine.

What I’m saying is it’s even worse than didn’t do any checks. It’s willfully ignoring existing checks intentionally.

It’s a nice marmot

Basically the father Ted skit with cows https://youtu.be/MMiKyfd6hA0

The cat zone is for loafing and unloafing only.

I mean I’ve been using native dual stack for over a decade and I’m most definitely American. A fun anecdote was I was having issues with clicking on links from Google once and turned out ipv4 was busted but 6 worked fine for half a day. And there really isn’t any turning on ipv6 I get it by default and it’s with the most hated isp Comcast. They’re actually really good about v6 support I’ve not moved off them because of it. It’s literally 10ms faster than 4 lilely due to cgnat.

The USA is ahead of most nations at about 50% so not sure how you’re coming to that conclusion based off of evidence. Outside of maybe Brazil in the americas on both continents our ipv6 adoption is better than the rest, Canada included.

No don’t take shitposts literally. I’ve been using ipv6 for a decade at home now in the USA and I don’t pay extra for it ever. Also why are you assuming this post refers to the us?

I die on this hill, people look at me weird when I say meese but it seems dum dum to have them different.

Accepting ssh key fingerprints on first ssh is a bad practice. Ssh ca’s and or sshfp are around and have been for decades. Accepting random host keys is like trusting random self signed ssl certificates.

Use ssh ca’s for user and host keys so you can revoke and rekey hosts without having to update authorized keys. And then you can revoke access to hosts for users as well and much more.

Not without an inappropriate amount of delta v, it takes effort to hit the sun from the earth. Iirc it’s less energy to yeet yourself out of the solar system from earth than to hit the sun. Direct be even crazier amounts of energy to cancel out our orbital velocity. Iirc it would be easier to do a Jupiter transfer to save on delta v, going direct though is clown town energy waste unless you have some dying need to get there faster for some reason. But you’ll pay for it, a lot, least until we get warp drives or something neato exotic. https://issfd.org/ISSFD_2014/ISSFD24_Paper_S6-5_jehn.pdf If you’re willing to trade time there are less costly ways to “hit” a 700 000 km radius target energy wise.

Make me should just refuse to do anything.

Does the fr curve just reply back with: bonjour?

I thought it was irix running that silly 3D file system viewer. So it was a registered Unix compliant system.

Important note rde’s can have more than one detonation wave, most cfd simulations and prototypes have 2 or 3 chasing each other. The challenge being keeping all of them moving at the same speed so as not to flame out etc…

Edit: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Rotating-detonation-engine-with-two-shocks_fig1_323353046

The coolest thing here is we can remove compressors from engines with this approach. That’s huge complexity just poof gone and weight. And that’s ignoring the efficiency gained from these guys.

I’d say still too soon to say. It’s a very touchy process to maintain so my guess is we would see this in rockets and probably large turbines used for power at first then likely ships and probably filtering down as we improve. Best bet on this is to expect it in a 10 year horizon from where it’s at. The fact we can run as long as this test did in only about 3ish years of development? Is a good sign. Honestly rotating detonation engines working at all is a minor engineering miracle so even just a working rocket engine is huge. This can help the rocket equation a ton depending on how far from theoretical we get in reality but let’s swag 20%, that is better than the 10% we gained from switching from an open cycle to closed cycle rocket engine.

Fun times ahead though!

The physics behind this can theoretically improve all turbines by up to 25% efficiency. Not just rockets but turbines, thats nothing to sneeze at. Your point is noted, but misguided as nasa is around for exactly this reason to push the limits of physics not building housing. This is a huge leap forward. The brayton cycle working at the top of its efficiency curve at all is akin to jet engines over propellers. It’s that big of a deal to increase efficiency by 25% for an entire class of engines.