I'm in manufacturing/engineering. There's no political definition for who takes the jobs, but I do believe their political leanings very closely align with their office personalities. There's the type that complains when someone takes some _liber_ties in the process, and then there's the type that sits for a minute trying to understand that alternate thought process (although usually met with the initial disapproval). There's the type that writes processes the way they think it should work, then there's the type that will convene with and cooperate with the actual affected workers before and after writing it. But at the same time, despite being rooted in science and hard evidence, compartmentalization is widely available. My household PhD is the most religious person in the office. The person is nice, smart, and competent to the point we filter our profanity around the PhD. Potentially the most creative engineer in the office (or most cocky with expenditure risk) is also one of the most obvious conservatives. Sort of like everyone must follow the social rules except for his design ideas.

The redneck engineers you're talking about are probably people who didn't get the formal education or don't have the corporate bankroll to take their work further

"Nobody wants to work anymore" is a fast track to identifying their news/political commentary sources. As if Janet in accounting dreamt of sending "month end inventory call" emails when she was a girl.

For music, I'd venture that the conservative stars are generally making their version of pop. It's not a rule itself, but a core of conservatism is following a set of existing rules because deviation is ostracized

Empathy. Understanding what causes emotional reactions and building on that rather than doing your own routine and being mad others won't agree with you.

Conservative comedians continually get "canceled" because their act only punches down and makes fun of other people, so their content only resonates with their own demographic. They lose audience because their content goes stale. There's a difference between the punchline being that the target is gay vs the punchline being what a gay person does and capturing that nuance. Adam Corolla had the same boring complaints about society, about economy cars, about not seeing enough tits, about sucking dick, over and over. Robin Williams was the full spectrum of range from Good Will Hunting to his stand up to his Genie and Doubtfire and Birdcage (separating from acting because of his amount of successful adlib).

Conservative actors only know one role: their idealized selves. I bet you they're a tough guy with no emotional range, shadowing John Wayne pretending to be a cowboy. Joe Pesci is a real NYC tough guy. That's his act, condescending tough guy. Even with his peak of comedic performance, Vinny, he was just the same character but brought hilarity by being woefully out of place for the plot. Robert De Niro was a theater kid. He makes bank as a mobster but imagine trying to watch Pesci play Captain Shakespeare in Stardust.

Conservative painters/physical media artists... I can't think of any. Maybe I'm just uninformed. Closest I can think of are some photographers that produce images I call "informational" rather than artistic. Capturing a moment in time as if the street view car just drove by, not capturing a mood or feeling.

Anyway, I wonder if the handedness is actually rooted in which kids were tormented in a strict Christian school vs who had a more explorative and welcoming upbringing. Not that people don't come out as lefties alter, but that's gotta hamper their skill-honing years for art.

I've never read the book. Never heard of it actually. The early claim of "stars being infected except one" paired with comments in this thread made it clear there was an alien encounter. Nothing really seems spoiled to me. It maintains a comedic element throughout.

If anything, I'm somewhat more interested in it for not being like the trilo/quadrilogy (1) I was going to jokingly put it in: the unofficial Warhammer origin movies. Event Horizon (1997), Sunshine (2007), and Pandorum (2009). Namely, a remake of Sunshine. These 3 movies introduce demonic beings brought on by space travel which is more or less accomplished by traveling through/near hell. A flaw, to me, is their late-plot reliance on downright supernatural abilities. I enjoyed the relatively solid scifi aspect (2) a lot until things used a godly deus ex machina to wrap it up. Maybe that's my fault for not actually being into 40K.

(1) the 4th reference movie is Black Hole (1979), the Disney Star Wars before Disney Star Warred. As far as I'm concerned, Event Horizon is a remake.

(2) the solar shield on the 2nd ship in Pandorum should have absolutely roasted the back of the first ship upon rendezvous. The movie established reflections could slice metal. The convex shape of the shield would diminish the strength, but the much larger size should have done the trick. I know it was hot before and Mark Strong was naked, but I don't think he would've been strong enough. Complete the nuke mission. God plot closed.

Edit: sorry to put yall through weird superscript formatting. It didn't isolate the 1/2 like it did in reddit. Paranthesized instead

Gerard's geriatric generator image format

"Cuomo is a good strong family, true New Yorkers. They have a bridge, don't they?"

They can tappan zees nuts.

Looks like the lower income is the Bronx and a bit of Brooklyn. Higher income is Manhattan and the Brooklyn/queens riverfront. The middle income map is more like what I'd expect to see overall based on the neighborhoods. More Cuomo for Staten Island/False New Jersey as well as east Brooklyn/Queens/Don't call it Long Island (even though they act like Nassau county is out in the country). There's a bunch of conservative, racist pricks that insist on NYC being the greatest (so they're definitely part of it) but off in homeowning urban areas pissed that they're making suburb money but paying urban prices. All while refusing to enjoy the fun parts of the city because they don't like the people there.

Tesla has airways had volitility. It goes up when musk overhype it, it goes down when tesla underdelivers. I had some stock and got off that roller coaster when the truck was unveiled. I stopped believing it was above board at all.

Sick nazi reference in the numbers though.

For those who want to laugh at the headline and not take 3 minutes to read the article:

An investigation of Livelsberger’s searches through ChatGPT indicate he was looking for information on explosive targets, the speed at which certain rounds of ammunition would travel and whether fireworks were legal in Arizona.

Kevin McMahill, sheriff of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, called the use of generative AI a “game-changer” and said the department was sharing information with other law enforcement agencies.

So the embarrassment comes from the sheriff's response, thinking ChatGPT is a game changer for its... Advanced googling and potential hallucinations.

Anyway, while I don't want to fuel better terrorism, the gearhead in me is seething with this other part.

stopped to pour race-grade fuel into the vehicle, which it then dripped

High octane gas is not extra spicy gasoline. Race gas is not super spicy gasoline. The higher the octane, the less flammable it is. Marginally, but octane is not an explosiveness rating. It's literally anti explosiveness - called anti-knock capability. Knock is when the fuel/air mixture self ignites, namely before the spark. High performance engines tend to have higher compression and run hotter, making predetonaion (knock) more likely. Higher octane fights this condition so it combust at the correct time.

Stop putting high octane in cars that say use regular. Some can account for it, but high octane is wasted on many normal cars. And it's not cleaner. Gas station chains may add cleaners to upsell you on vpower or invigorate, but that's just a marketing ploy. Get injector cleaner once a year for a lot cheaper if you must.

I'm always surprised to go another day where I don't hear anyone mention the risk of this mixup with Tushy, the anal porn site, and Hello Tushy, the bidet company.

So they want to change their identity based on the feelings and bend existing geo roles to match?

There's 2 significant inaccuracies in the article and 1 large oversight in the official video.

1. Differentials are not one wheel drive. They can seem to drive only one wheel when spinning the wheels as one let's loose and the other stays still, but it's not driving one wheel. It's still driving both. The problem is the free wheel is spinning at twice the speed indicated on the speedometer and the other is at 0. The driveshaft puts in a certain number of turns, the wheels, together, must add up to an equal output (multiplied by the gear ratio). If the car is going straight with full traction, then they turn the same. If you floor it in snow, one is probably spinning 40% over it's share and the other 40% under. This is not unique to rwd either as fwd cars still very much have a functioning differential. To throw some numbers at it to help clarify the function, let's say the engine is asking the wheels to spin at 30rpm each in a straight line. In a left turn, the right wheel travels further and needs to spin at 35rpm while the inner spins at 25rpm. It still adds up to 60rpm, same as a straight line. Mash it in the snow and it might be 60rpm in the left and 0nin the right or 0 in the left and 60 in the left. It could be 5/55, 40/20, or any other combo as long as it totals 60.

PS: differentials are irrelevant when the wheels aren't connected to each other. Individual-motor wheels, as shown in the video, don't need a diff. The non-drive wheels in a 2-wheel drive vehicle do not have a differential on the non-drive axle.

2. Cv joints are not specific to fwd as nearly all modern rwd cars with independent rear suspensions have CV joints. I don't know of any trucks still using U-joints either since big trucks are solid axle. Cv joints function the same as U joints. The difference is C.V. joints output constant velocity whereas U-joints (what you'll see often under trucks on the driveshaft, two square C shaft ends with an X link between) have lopey output that gets worse with greater deflection angle. If you own a u-joint bit for your socket wrench, I invite you to play with it. Instead of a solid pinned X between the U ends, CVs have free-rolling balls that can roll inboard and outboard to maintain the link between the shaft's cup and the wheel's cone.

3. The article is inaccurate but the video ignores this part, so I don't fault The writer. The CV joints are said to be a poor design, yet, it ignores the part where the video reinstalls them at 4:20 and 5:10 for the front wheels. This mechanism does not allow angular deflection between the motor and hub, as it's shown, without a CV joint. Lateral displacement, yes, but not angular - as in it can't steer. This may be an overall improvement by reducing how often it needs to bend (only when steering), but it doesn't eliminate it. And even then, the rear suspension is still designed to change camber as it changes ride height. Camber is the angle of the wheel as measured top to bottom, as in what you see from looking at the wheels from the front of the car. It keeps the wheels flat on the ground as you lean the car in a corner. You may see an overloaded car's rear wheels look like /---\ as viewed from the rear or ---/ when hanging free on a lift.

Look, I'm not an engineer at Hyundai (or even a competitor) but this doesn't quite pass the sniff test. Cool idea for sure, but it smells a little like marketing is clamoring for something edgy to display. Even as displayed, the motors and original reduces were already very compact and in close proximity to the wheels compared to a normal engine. The slightly reduced footprint of this uni wheel and slightly increased friction of a bunch of additional gears makes me think this is a fractional improvement in practice rather than a revolutionary improvement.

That's the neat thing. The speed of light is constant. It doesn't change. It's always 1c whether you're traveling at +1c, - 1c, or 0c. Buckle up for some relativity. The wavelength can compress or expand, but it always travels at 1c.

Let's say you're on a ship capable of moving at any speed between 0c and 1c. You're passing a particular star and want to travel to a planet 1ly away. You have a powerful laser and the other planet has a powerful telescope to detect it. There are calibrated timers on both the planet and on your ship that are synced to each other. .

T minus zero. You flash the laser at the planet as you fly at 0.5c, or 1/2 lightyear per year. The light travels at 1c, or 1ly per year.

1 year after the flash, the planet sees the flash. It traveled 1ly in 1 year. 2 years after the flash, the planet sees your ship arrive. All is normal so far.

From the ship, you know the light traveled at 1c away from you. You arrive at the planet 1 year after the flash, according to your on board timer. One. The light took half as long as you.

Time is not constant, c is constant. The faster you go, the slower time passes. In 1 year of fast travel, you arrive 2 years later, according to the stationary planet. So all of the light physics apply the same, no matter the speed. Time dilates to make up the logical difference. If you reach 1c, time effectively stops and you arrive instantaneously, from your perspective. When we look up at the Andromeda galaxy, some 2.5 million lightyears away, the light we see was emmited 2.5 million years ago - from our perspective. If we see a star go supernova in Andromeda, it happened 2.5 million years ago. But those photons of light, created by a star that died 2.5 million years ago, experience no time passage at all. They instantaneously go from the star to your retina, from their perspective.

That's basically why lightspeed travel is effectively impossible within our current models. Traveling faster is out of the question because none of it makes sense. It's not a simple matter of making a new model or believing scientists are idiots. There are many experiments that hold true to the model (such as the atomic clocks used on a plane to test the effect of speed and gravity on time dilation) as well as satellites using the current model to maintain time accuracy. The energy required to get to those speeds is not even remotely feasible. The fastest man made object at 450,000+mph, the Parker solar probe, is still in the 0.0005c range. We tried our best and it's still just a tiny fraction of 1c. And that's by using some gravity slingshots and spiraling down into the sun's gravity well, nothing about leaving the solar system. The Voyager probes that slingshotted out of the sun's gravity well are down to under 40,000mph.