jawshoeaw

jawshoeaw t1_jdo97ah wrote

It may be a little of both as the saying goes. Studies of vaccine antibody persistence in a few diseases suggest that if you’re not regularly exposed to the organism in question, the antibodies fade faster, sometimes much faster than in communities where the organism is endemic. Even though the people are not getting reinfected at least not obviously. So (and this is just my idle speculation) since influenza famously does as you said , drift , maybe we don’t get the benefit of reawakening the vaccine with repeated exposure. But back to actual science: it remains a mystery why influenza vaccines fade so incredibly fast , sometimes within a month it’s starting to fade.

5

jawshoeaw t1_jat9lnt wrote

Ohhh gotcha. But sadly that’s rarely survivable with current fuels. I could see some edge case where there’s a survivable landing but here’s the actual advantage of hydrogen, the high pressure vessels are necessarily quite strong and might do better in a crash even if the broke open compared to avgas

1

jawshoeaw t1_jasbz4p wrote

For anyone who didn't read article: this was an electric motor being tested on one side of the aircraft, with the other being a conventional turbine engine aka turboprop. The electric motor was fed by electricity generated in a fuel cell that used hydrogen as the fuel source. In other words, they didn't "burn" the hydrogen in a turbine engine, This is why the pilot reported it was so much smoother. It was an electric motor. The hydrogen was sourced from water, not from natural gas so was in some sense truly "green"

16

jawshoeaw t1_jasajd4 wrote

would clarify that while slowly ramping can be inefficient, flooring the accelerator, depending on the vehicle can also be inefficient .The principle being an engine under load is more efficient , but only up to a point again depending on design. but in this case, the motor was electric so no reason not to goose it :)

1

jawshoeaw t1_j9wglgu wrote

100% agreed. This feels like tone-deaf Silicon Valley nonsense with someone hoping to be the next billionaire. You know their goal is to monetize it too , not make your life easier. You will have rich people increasingly using bots and AI with everyone else doing things like they always have.

6

jawshoeaw t1_j9wfbxs wrote

Plus it sucks. The fridge will miss stuff, or order the wrong thing. Nobody’s food need are this regimented. And it’s more expensive than just going to the grocery store at least around here. I’ve tried using an app to order groceries ahead of time and it was so aggravating i think i spent more time on the app than I saved. And if you are even slightly interested in price shopping it’s not great.

5

jawshoeaw t1_j9ip89n wrote

Maybe. I have been impressed with chatGPT , but mostly in its ability to replicate the tedious and practical. The things so many of us must do for a paycheck. You know that feeling that you love a song and wonder , will there ever be another song this good? Or a book where you’re literally depressed that it’s over and want to cry that nothing written will ever make you feel that way again? I don’t believe that will be reproduced by an AI . If it is I’m done

8