This actually sounds like an honest (mis?)diagnosis. Confusing migraine and temporal lobe epilepsy is not a particularly egregious mistake, and the two conditions often occur together. A number of anti-seizure medications are prescribed to prevent migraines.
Wasn’t one of the early findings of the investigation that Reif had signed a thank you note to Epstein for his donations, and had sat in the meeting where the institute decided faculty could take Epstein’s money as long as he donated anonymously?
I always assumed that this disconnect was because most domestic u.s. air travel is business related, so that in general, the traveler is not the customer.
There was a lot of strange stuff going on with the FBI in the Tsarnaev case. Agents from the Boston FBI office traveled to Florida and shot Ibragim Todashev and then couldn’t get their story straight about whether he attacked FBI agents with a broom or a samurai sword or a table.
I always assumed it had an ability to relocate. I guess sustained movement in a 2y mission is hard, you have to budget for non-replaceables to make thrust work, ion thrusters consume stuff too.
I kind-of get it, that for a sufficiently timed orbit, it sees all places.. eventually. Being able to relocate means you can be where you want to be, without predictable periodicity.
It's hard to explain without calling out to Kerbal Space Program, but it's really hard to figure out what you mean by 'able to relocate' in the context of orbital flight.
Your orbital period is determined by size of your orbit, and the difference between that and the earth's rotation causes your land track to precess. For most this means your land track will eventually be over every possible point. Raising or lowering your orbit will let you find a 'flyover' intercept in fewer orbits, but it will still take time to get there. Hard to do accurately and you normally want to keep that fuel around for boosting your orbit when it degrades due to atmospheric drag.
Other kinds of orbital manoeuvres could be used, but they are even more expensive and less likely to get you were you want to be (as long as you are in an inclination that passes over your desired target).
The main reason for this is that orbits are characterised (pretty much exactly) by your position/velocity pair. Every orbit your position and velocity will repeat, absent any external forces. Modelling any acceleration as instantaneous (which is pretty close) you can see that you can only ever directly change your velocity. Accelerate prograde and your orbit will be raised on the other side of your orbit; when you complete one of your new orbits you will be back in the exact same location, but with your new speed.
but it's really hard to figure out what you mean by 'able to relocate' in the context of orbital flight.
I mean make a change of plane in unpredictable ways. You can't just scoot sideways for no apparent reason, clearly orbit means what it says. But the point would be to make changes of orbit at cost, to get somewhere faster than waiting for the orbit you are in, to get there.
(height and speed over a point on the ground being assumed to be less important than actually being over it, when you want it to be over it)
Games have necessarily become more and more parallelised (whether through multithreading or multiprocessing) over the last decade, as even consoles are multi-core these days.
Both XB1 and PS4 have 8 cores (2xJaguar modules). Both also reserve one of the core exclusively for the system, so a single-threaded game would only leverage 14% of available CPU compute power.
The Switch is somewhat similar through to a lower extent: it effectively uses a quad-core ARM, with one of the core reserved to the system leaving 3 to game developers.
For the last decade most of them are console ports, consoles have many CPU cores since Xbox 360 (3 cores / 6 threads, 2005) and PS3 (1+6 asymmetric cores, 2006).
Most games render from single thread, but besides submitting these draw calls games do a lot of things under the hood.
Can't edit anymore, so adding here. Between 'not vulnerable' and 'max speed' there are a few different intermediate states, probably was in one of those. And I have to admit that for All Green in spectre-meltdown-checker.sh and InSpectre.exe I'd have to pay a pretty noticeable price based on my Overwatch VFIO testing.
Pretty sure there's no point returning to that intermediate state again, might as well commit to one or the other.
I was thinking the same, as an extra ingredient in the recipe. Nutrition and good health habits (avoid smoking, avoid excessive drinking of alcohol or sodas, sleep the necessary for your well-being, practice some sport, etc) are essentials you can't ignore.
Yeah, the whole problem is that traditional publishing is designed around creating the best experience for publishers, not for authors or audiences.
The reference formatting thing is just one of the ways they make it obnoxious for authors (it would be better for authors if you could just send them a list of DOIs and their computers should make it look the way journal style dictates — ELife does this). Idiosyncratic rules about the naming of sections or formatting of methods or supplementary material make transferring article between journals (even at the same publisher) unnecessarily tedious.
From the audience perspective, nobody wants to vault over the paywall to click on the link to click on the link to get the pdf that displays in a pane of the browser window. Nobody wants an enhanced pdf, whatever that is. I don’t want to see a pop up with the articles you think I should read next because they happen to share a single word in the title. I just want to click a link in pubmed or google scholar and go direct to the pdf. A few months back someone posted an enhanced google scholar that just linked directly to the PDFs from sci-hub. The user experience was so good that it really highlighted how obnoxiously bad publisher sites are.
So it looks like Ito wasn’t trying to deceive the administration about the source of Epstein’s donations by marking them as anonymous (as the New Yorker article implied), but rather he was marking them as anonymous because the administration was aware of and accepted Epstein’s post-conviction patronage, on the condition that it remained anonymous.
Do universities routinely do this (with money from Epstein, or other unsavory individuals)?
Does “deceive the integrity” have some specific legal meaning wherever you’re from? I can’t find any hits for the phrase in DDG. What are you trying to argue?
I was not vindicating Ito of anything except the narrow charge (made in Ronan Farrow’s New Yorker article) of attempting to hide the source of Epstein funds from MIT by marking them as anonymous. It’s clear now from Reif’s letter that this was actually done with MIT’s knowledge and at MIT’s request.
Both Ito and MIT decided to take Epstein’s money, knowing that he was a convicted sex offender.
My engrish not very good, sorry and not related to first poster.
But any funding process has to ultimately be signed off by the administration.
This is usually President level, unless it is “personal usage”.
Ito received both cash envelopes. The one for mit had to be signed off via routine anonymous so to pass mit administration.
Whether the arrangement was explicit or implicit, if Epstein name is mentioned it can’t be signed.
But I can approve as anonymous source. Also I don’t care if you receive ur own personal envelopes for your startup and other side investments.
I think “deceive the integrity” means that the administration wouldn’t have been in the position in the first place to agree to anonymize the donation if not for Ito’s actions.
Except Ito wasn’t the only faculty member taking money from Epstein, and the Media lab wasn’t the only department. The thank-you letter to Epstein that Reif signed was for money Epstein gave to support Seth Lloyd — a professor in mechanical engineering and physics — and the earliest known money from Epstein after his conviction. The ‘if not for Ito’ reading doesn’t make sense.
