This shows that wavelengths between ~10cm and ~10m are largely unaffected by the atmosphere, so you wouldn't gain much from putting receivers of those wavelengths in space. Spitzer and JWST (IR), and Chandra (x-ray) operate in bands that are generally blocked by the atmosphere, and Hubble gets better images than a similarly sized earth-based telescope because of the atmospheric distortion (stars don't "twinkle" when you're in space), however there are still earth-based visible light telescopes because you can more easily build a massive one on earth than in space
What's loading during the "loading" time? The network tab in developer tools doesn't show any transfers taking place during that time. It finishes getting content then shows the loading thing for a bit, then shows the content
I'm surprised "mobile phone specs with laptop form factor" isn't a larger product base. Modern smartphones seem capable enough to run a lot of "normal" software, obviously not super heavy ones like after effects or something, but for lighter tasks (web browsing etc), it seems like a good market
Most of the major vendors are already assembling x86 laptops for the far larger Windows market, it's cheaper to just reuse those models for ChromeOS instead of designing a special ARM design, which in turn due to lack of scale are priced similarly to their x86 counterpart. Price sensitive customers thus don't see that much saving.
Battery life is nice, but I doubt there's that much market yearning for a cheap laptop with long battery life. People who really need large screen for long work without wall power either go at x64 (which can reach 12 hours on mid range now), or change their workflow to use Android tablet. The ubiquity of USB charging port that can power the laptop (or at least top it up while standing by on lunch) also means even if an x86 laptop may not last an entire day, the owner don't have to suffer the inconvenience of carrying around the power brick.
There won't be that much saving due to the lack of scale. The mentality of (normal, well adjusted) people around me is to dismiss laptop entirely as a personal computing device, they have their phones and tablets that are far easier to use. For them to get a laptop would imply they're forced to, because there are Windows apps unavailable for Android/iOS. A cheap Arm notebook is useless for them (unless Microsoft somehow decide to work with Mediatek and the rest for cheap WoA devices). Chromebook never gained popularity in my country with lack of reliable and affordable internet access so the realistic OS would be either one of those Linux distro that support ARM (but in turn, most people don't care about Linux), or Android, in which case it's still far more natural to just get a tablet with a keyboard attachment because Android desktop experience and the apps ecosystem aren't there yet.
I only have a basic knowledge of Japanese, more from a linguistics standpoint than a language learning standpoint, but it's interesting to me that "dameeji" is written with katakana and sounds like a loanword, instead of sounding more distinct from the English, which I'd expect from a word that has existed for a long time in Japan. Is this because it's more like a game-specific technical word, rather than just the word "damage"? Or am I just very uninformed about Japanese?
Almost every word written in katakana is a loanword, and most of them come from English. There are many different words in Japanese that can be translated to "damage"/"harm"/"injury" etc., but I guess none of them carry the exact connotations that ダメージ does. I've noticed that loan words are very common in Japanese video games, sometimes for words that to me appear to have an exact match in Japanese. I don't know why they do this. There are also some writers that make an effort to avoid loan words and use more traditional Japanese, but this is not so common.
An example which I find amusing is お金ゲット！(okane getto, money get). There are perfectly valid Japanese alternatives to Getto, and to an English speaker, this sentence doesn't even make sense. That's not how "Get" is used in English grammar at all. But in Japanese it's kind of a playful way of saying you acquired something.
dameeji is a loanword, no? I have no ability in japanese but from a quick search 損傷 Sonshō (injury), which includes 傷 Kizu (scratch, wound, scar, weak point, hurt) seems like the words for "Damage" in a transliteration sense.
There are a ton of words where the loan-word is commonly used even when there's a native word.
For example, there's both "desuku" for desk, and also "tsukue" (the original japanese word). They're both in very common use. The loan-word has an ever-so-slight vibe of a western-style desk, while tsukue has an ever-so-slight vibe of a schoolroom desk.
Languages change over time, and english has had a large influence on Japanese.
Of course there's a word for damage in japanese ("higai" is probably the best fit for Magic), but there's also "dameeji" now, and it feels mildly more western-fantasy like to use it.
There isn't always a logical or obvious reason why a loan-word is used over a native word, as is true for a lot of linguistic changes (like in english, why does someone say "soda" vs "pop", why do some people call it a "pillbug" and some a "rolly-polly"?). Just accept that loan-words are used in some cases, and there's not always a reason other than "people just say it that way".
I'm happy to accept it, I just didn't expect it. Like I say, I don't know foreign languages enough to speak them or know their culture, I find them interesting from a linguistic point of view. (also its a "soft drink" and a "woodlouse" :P )
Because, to be honest, whats the point? We can pretty much determine the composition of the atmosphere with spectroscopy, and we can't land without being crushed, boiled and dissolved at the same time. If we go to Mars, we can potentially find things on the surface (eg interesting geological formations) much faster than a rover could, and potentially run more in-depth scientific tests on what we do find, rather than just what we can send on a single rover
> We can pretty much determine the composition of the atmosphere with spectroscopy
I don't believe (could be wrong, not an expert) that spectroscopy is sharp enough to tell you about the structure of complex molecules in Venus's upper atmosphere.
I think the most complex board game I've really played any amount of is Carcasonne (Not particularly complicated). Often, if I'm playing a board game, I prefer it to be on the simpler end, more of a relaxing thing.
One memorable board gaming experience I had was playing Splendor (I believe) with my cousin, and it ended up being almost completely silent, just passing tokens around and the occasional "oh..." when another player did something undesirable.
Pit is also popular in my family when there's a gathering of us, with rounds often lasting only a minute or so, and getting quite frantic, and it is a very simple game
I do exactly the second part of this. Nobody is going to read what I write, so I just write about what I did, how I did it and what I was thinking when I did it. Not everything has to be written as a perfectly cited essay, but often just noting down what you did can be helpful in the long run. Sometimes I've thought of something, remembered that I did something useful and related in the past and dug out an old article to consult my previous thoughts
This reminds me of the book Arcade Game Typography (https://www.counter-print.co.uk/products/arcade-game-typogra...), which looks at the history of a lot of arcade game fonts, sorted by category, and often has a full sprite sheet of the letters. I've been meaning to make my own digitised copy of all of the fonts for a while
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_electrom...
This shows that wavelengths between ~10cm and ~10m are largely unaffected by the atmosphere, so you wouldn't gain much from putting receivers of those wavelengths in space. Spitzer and JWST (IR), and Chandra (x-ray) operate in bands that are generally blocked by the atmosphere, and Hubble gets better images than a similarly sized earth-based telescope because of the atmospheric distortion (stars don't "twinkle" when you're in space), however there are still earth-based visible light telescopes because you can more easily build a massive one on earth than in space
reply