Lagrange L1 is basically the only place you can place something between Earth and the Sun without heavy maintenance costs to maintain the position.
L1 is at 1% of the distance from earth to the sun. This means that if you are going to put something reflective there, there is basically no benefit size-wise compared to doing it directly on earth. (Diagrams usually make it look like it's 1/3 of the way, which would have a 77% increase to the covered area).
Feels like it would be easier to put something reflective like that somewhere on earth instead, allowing for a much bigger coverage per $.
Side note about that: people doing amateur porn where their face doesn't show at all still get recognized because of particular marks on their skins. So this might help this very specific case, but maybe not as much as one would think.
Logically (and ideally), the incoming air and outgoing air would exchange heat until they are at the same temp, which would be in the middle. So I would not expect an efficiency higher than 50% unless there is some special tech I'm not aware?
Imagine you have two very long tubes joined thermally throughout their entire lengths. For the sake of simplicity, no energy is exchanged with the environment, only between the two fluids.
The cold fluid will meet (thermally, in adjacent pipe) more and more hot other fluid and finally as it reaches the end it will meet the hot fluid at exactly the temperature it comes in. If the fluids are flowing slow enough and the thermal bond is good enough, the cold fluid can get heated up as close to the hot fluid temperature as you want.
And the hot fluid will meet colder and colder other fluid until it reaches the coldest at the other side.
The efficiency of heat exchanger could be as close to 100% as you want, in ideal world.
In real world higher efficiency requires larger device and there is a point of diminishing returns. You also get other losses like mechanical losses due to need to pump fluids through pipes (with large surface area), due to need to have turbulent flow (to ensure mixing within pipes) and due to heat loss to the environment.
Counterflow heat exchangers move the air past each other so that the input air hits the exhaust air in reverse order. The last spot the intake air touches is the first place the exhaust gas touches.
I think another part of this is that there is generally a significant moisture content difference between hot and cool air, leading to some additional gains versus thinking in terms of air temperature alone.
When cold air gets heated up the relative humidity gets lower. If you already have very cold winter which tends to be relatively dry -- you should add humidity and this will necessarily cool the air. While this is not strictly necessary, very dry air is not healthy or comfortable. You typically don't need to add humidity when the temperature outside is around freezing but air is very humid.
And conversely, if you live in very hot and humid climate, you need to remove water from incoming air (actually, there is no other way to cool the air). This unfortunately further warms the incoming air and will necessarily lower efficiency of the exchange. Especially because you don't want to remove only minimum humidity -- you probably want to remove enough of it to get to at least 70% for comfort.
So these are extreme climates. In a more moderate climate you can get away with no need to add or remove humidity and you can get as close to 100% efficiency as you want.
Radio Canada wrote an excellent deep dive into it last month but it's in French. I'm halfway through it, and it's really sad to read about it. I'm glad that I'm not building a pension in Quebec, but my entire family is.
I doubt celcius in the CDPQs most sketchy investment. Don't they also own a huge amount of the provinces debt, basically turning the provincial finances into a house of cards. Any investment they make that diversifies outside of Quebec is at least going in the right direction (even if this on was dumb)
> Don't they also own a huge amount of the provinces debt, basically turning the provincial finances into a house of cards
Didn't the feds just demonstrate they would just bailout a province going bankrupt?
I think it was Newfoundland who managed to get to the brink of bankruptcy with a failed hydro project. The results? Everyone up north ended up paying for it. Makes any junk bond with a province name's on it de-facto insured.
Small mistake, and maybe that's why this function exists, but it's actually combines `.map(fn).flat(1)`.
I think conceptually, `flatMap` is a `map` where each iteration can return multiple values (or none). So it feels quite more powerful than just `map` and is a quite common convenience function.
I think the depth argument of flat defaults to 1, so it'd be the same anyway. Not sure why the default is 1, I'd prefer Infinity so it'd always flatten everything by default, but maybe there are some good reasons for it.
But in the real world, if we must have a default, I think it should be 1, not infinity.
Infinity has a frustrating fail state, in my opinion: you might be flattening arrays that weren't meant to be flattened. And now you've got a cluster!@#$ of data to look at and reason about.
The fail state of 1 is that it doesn't flatten enough but you have the original structure in your 1-level flattened output. So you're far more likely to make heads and tails of how much more flattening you need.
Arguably the same argument works the other way around as well, that in thinking flat recursively flattens all arrays of arrays you get confused when it doesn't. (I've definitely run across that footgun.)
For me, I just find that in almost all cases I've used flat it's been with Infinity as the depth value. It seems to me as well that most of the time you'd probably either want 1 or Infinity, not 5 or 12 or whatever, so perhaps it would've even been better to just have two functions: flat and flatDeep (or some such, naming is hard) the latter of which would default to Infinity but allow different depths as well.
Probably reads better than just flat as well, e.g. `.flatDeep(5)` rather than `.flat(5)`. Oh well, we're stuck with this now so it's all an academic exercise anyway, but I'd be curious to know the rationale of the design. Maybe I'll wade through the spec repo one day to see if there's any discussion about it.
Take that galaxy that just crossed our "observable universe horizon" so that we can't see it. If there is a civilization halfway between Earth and that galaxy, they can still see that galaxy. The galaxy can see that second civilization and so can we. There isn't a single fixed "observable universe" boundary in space, it's just relative to the observer.
With a black hole, it is different. There is no point that can see both sides while being seen from both sides,. If you are outside the black hole, you see nothing from within. If you are inside, then you can see the inside (this is speculation) and you also see the outside. It's a very clear boundary.
This is known to be not correct. When you are near the event horizon, you can still observe most of our ordinary observable universe, as well as subset of black hole's interior.
This is the direct reason/consequence of not being able to observe the event horizon when near it, or notice when you cross it.
The boundary is not clear, it depends on the observer.
You're describing a fork. Bitcoin has already been forked uncountable times. They don't carry over the users, so they don't carry over the network effects either.
There is still a lot of work that has to be done before the ball is given to LLVM. If that gets optimized, it can improve the results.
Also, I would expect a more recent language to have a lot more low-hanging fruits than much older and highly used languages. The more you optimize, the harder it gets to optimize more.
L1 is at 1% of the distance from earth to the sun. This means that if you are going to put something reflective there, there is basically no benefit size-wise compared to doing it directly on earth. (Diagrams usually make it look like it's 1/3 of the way, which would have a 77% increase to the covered area).
Feels like it would be easier to put something reflective like that somewhere on earth instead, allowing for a much bigger coverage per $.