> [...] a Danish warship has been discovered on the seabed of Copenhagen harbour by marine archaeologists.
> Working in thick sediment and almost zero visibility 15 metres (49ft) beneath the waves, divers are in a race against time to unearth the 19th-century wreck of the Dannebroge before it becomes a construction site in a new housing district being built off the Danish coast.
Crippling visibility for the divers - but it's in a harbour, just 15m of water, and a future housing district. "Cofferdam and drain" ain't cheap - but how much of that cost could be recovered in the later construction phases? Or - could they box in the site, cover the bottom with a grid of heavy plastic sheets (preventing sediment from being stirred up), and mostly clear the water with a filter system?
Yes... Though compared to most "pointless blue clicks pay the bills" stories, this one at least starts well.
Slightly bigger picture - just skim the headlines, and don't bother clicking on anything labeled (in effect) "Team Red is Bad". The NYT publishes a trickle of more meaningful articles about US politics. Or at least more informative articles - for those comfortably ensconced in a well-to-do Team Blue bubble, yet still willing to learn.
Actual big picture - welcome to late-stage capitalism. Big Media was bought up by Big Money, and is optimizing for profit. Team Blue is a herd of old cats, optimizing for a sort of lazy, self-righteous comfort. Team Red is an angry mob, but at least willing to follow leaders. (Who obviously care about no one but themselves...but are willing to think further ahead than their next quarterly bonus, sunny nap, or angry scream.) Everyone else is stuck in the resulting enshittified dystopia.
Not an insurance underwriter - but wouldn't the obvious counter-move be to exclude coverage for medical assistance/transportation when you're climbing mountains overseas, spelunking, within X miles of the north or south pole, traveling in a submarine, or have otherwise ventured into "high-dollar extraction" territory?
I went to Nepal two years ago. The standard insurance of my Mastercard Gold specifically excluded medical assistance/transportation for acute altitude sickness from the coverage (and rescue operators are reluctant to intervene without proof of proper insurance coverage).
As a precaution (having read about it on forums) I had taken an additional insurance from a French shop specialized in hiking and mountaineering (le Vieux Campeur) to cover more events.
Good thing I did because I ended up having to be evacuated for something that was initially considered as acute altitude sickness and turned out to be a lot more life threatening once in the hospital.
The obvious counter move is just to charge higher premiums. It works whether the crises are real or fabricated. The real losers are not the insurance companies, but other tourists overpaying on their premiums.
In my experience, it's only the cheap insurance policies bundled with credit cards and various memberships that consider high-altitude hiking a high-risk activity. Any travel insurance you buy as individual should cover it. If there is an altitude limit, it's usually 6000 m, so Everest Base Camp and Kilimanjaro would be covered but Aconcagua wouldn't. And any actual mountaineering would also be high-risk, regardless of altitude.
Not to rain on the parade...but this is innovation with a very small "i". Aircraft using guns against each other was SOP in WWI, and they were already using recoilless (in the air) back then.
Yeah but it's cheap and doesn't need putting pilots up there.
The:
>When a Russian recon drone enters the zone, the system vectors an interceptor to chase it down and destroy it, without requiring a human operator to manually fly the engagement.
Yeah - in WWI, autonomous weapons were mostly mines (land or naval).
OTOH, fire-and-forget missiles have been around for half a century or so.
Bigger picture: Yes, obviously this is a good idea. My take is that it should be graded purely on how well they've implemented it - with no hype, and 0 extra credit points for "innovation".
No - but they could hire full-time panels of such experts, and never miss the money.
More to the point - if the CEO of DogFoodCo won't let his own family pets eat any of his company's flagship products, then maybe smart dog owners should follow his example?
Or, if one is uncertain whether to trust the courier between you and your spy - one can send two different one time pads by two different couriers. If the spy is trained to xor those pads together before using, an enemy must intercept both pads to be able to read your messages.
There are many variants on this, including pads which you hope your enemy will intercept.
If you look at a list of known superconductors and their transition temperatures - it appears that the difficulty of getting a material to superconduct is proportional some unfriendly power of the absolute temperature.
Superconducting does seem much easier under a few hundred GPa's of pressure - but that's less convenient to maintain than liquid helium cooling.
Is "Why not pay people to do their jobs correctly?" a way of voicing frustration with massive gov't incompetence? Or a way of saying that organizational incompetence is top-down?
Both, but its also a genuine question. If you look at the Boeing 737 max for example they did it clearly with the idea of profit. I can understand the reasoning (it is still criminal and people should have gone to jail imo).
Why you would pay something like that with tax money is beyond my understanding.
> From what I understand the UK allowed it because ...
I'd say "severe post-WWII money shortage". After wartime expansion, the global copper industry could physically meet peacetime demands. But the UK was very close to national bankruptcy. And the Luftwaffe had turned an awful lot of their prewar housing into rubble. So - any cost that could be cut, was.
> Working in thick sediment and almost zero visibility 15 metres (49ft) beneath the waves, divers are in a race against time to unearth the 19th-century wreck of the Dannebroge before it becomes a construction site in a new housing district being built off the Danish coast.
Crippling visibility for the divers - but it's in a harbour, just 15m of water, and a future housing district. "Cofferdam and drain" ain't cheap - but how much of that cost could be recovered in the later construction phases? Or - could they box in the site, cover the bottom with a grid of heavy plastic sheets (preventing sediment from being stirred up), and mostly clear the water with a filter system?
reply