I believe it is rude to ask this question, mainly because you already know the answer and there is no value to be derived from the discussion; therefore it is best to simply allow people to focus on Dyson. A great scientist has died and people should be able to reflect and pay their respect to the life that he lived. It is not fair to ask people to feel the way you feel and the black bar denotes a feeling of mourning. My friends and I had a math games night to honor Katherine Johnson and it was amazing but we would never ask those of another culture to feel the same way or have the same connection with her that we did.
My interpretation of your question is that underlying it is a belief that Katherine Johnson ought to have gotten a black bar given that Freeman Dyson got one. Can you elaborate on why you think they both ought to have gotten or neither of them should have gotten one? Would you have asked why Freeman Dyson did not get a black bar if the roles had been reversed?
> With that background, the morality of "smuggling" these cells is a bit of a gray area.
The grey area here is from lack of foundational knowledge surrounding these cells, and your assumptions aren’t useful (nor are they likely, I suspect, to hold). For example, we have no idea if these cells were originally provided to the lab under an MTA, nor any restrictions placed by the funding source.
> Keeping them is just like me keeping my notebooks when I move, even if I haven't finished solving the equations therein.
This is not a grey area: lab notebooks and lab data are generally speaking the property of the lab. The proper procedure is to request permission to create a copy of them when you move to a new institution. Check your university’s IP policy, it should be the governing rule set.
There isn’t enough information in the linked article to say how unique or important these particular cells are or how difficult they would be to replicate. On the more valuable end could be cells provided by a company for testing (maybe transformed to express some sort of protein they’ve created), or primary cells (isolated from an organism) that are unique in some way, or hybridomas that produce monoclonal antibodies for something druggable or diagnostically relevant.
The Boston Herald article linked by another commentator suggests that in at least one element this case fits the pattern of others that have been appearing: the accused is receiving funds from the Chinese government under an ostensible scholar program. In some of the other cases, such as with the Thousand Talents program, the scholars signed contracts that agreed to disclose or assign IP only to the Chinese institutions, conceal the source of funding for studies (both to journals or funding agencies), or agree to work at the Chinese institutions in excess of the norms for visiting appointments. The Thousand Talents program and others like it are a coordinated, calculated, and deliberate effort run by the Chinese government, not the accidental missteps of some aloof academics.
Honestly, that just sounds like the usual rules for academic funding, phrased in a conspiratorial way. Would you also call NSF funding "a coordinated, calculated, and deliberate effort run by the American government"? Is science good for nothing but proxy war to you?
> conceal the source of funding for studies (both to journals or funding agencies)
doesn't sound like the usual rules for academic funding. I heavily doubt whether the Thousand Talents program really has such a rule. It's the exact opposite of what organizations funding scientific research usually want: getting their name acknowledged in as many papers in prestigious journals as possible, in order to demonstrate success.
They did this, but the blacklist only prevents the remote from getting updates from the cloud.. it does not brick the device, and it can continue to use its current config. Or at least that's how it used to be.
I have a harmony that I bought in 2009-ish, and the provided "batteries included" exploded in the first few days of ownership and made a huge mess. I wrote them a complaint, and they sent me a new remote. When I activated the new one, the old one stopped taking updates.
Amusingly, there is an open source tool that can pull a config from one harmony and flash it to another. The replacement was actually slightly inferior (mushy keys), and so I'd program the replacement, back up the config, and restore it to the original.
I assign some blame to always-on modern gauge clusters. You couldn’t see the old-style front lit ones at night unless you turned on your headlights, so there was a sort of natural reminder.
I think between always-on/lcd gauge clusters and DRLs that's a large part of the cause, but I think there are also a lot of really simple solutions that could be explored.
Right now the only way to realize you don't have your lights on when you have DRLs is to realize that your gauge cluster is missing the notification that the headlights are on.
I'd wager simply adding an icon in the gauge cluster like an orange icon with a cross through it would solve a large portion of the issue as it would only rely on people noticing the active notification rather than the absence of another.
I think it’s more a function of the street lamps that allow you to see the road without having to turn on the headlights. If people can’t see where they’re going, it’s obvious very quickly.
In a lot of northern states in the winter, one of the previous societal expectation was that you'd turn your lights on whenever it was snowing - which, around here, is pretty much constant, as is the resulting salt residue on windshields. It's not very bright either because the sun at solar noon peaks at about 20 degrees above the horizon and is behind perpetual clouds.
But that's still bright enough that a lot of automatic headlights don't turn on.
Mine don't, and my car is pretty new.
The problem is: I leave my wipers on almost all the time, rain or shine. With automatic wipers, there's little reason to turn them off, so I end up just leaving them on most of the time, and then when I get splashed by a passing vehicle going through a puddle or something, the wipers will automatically clear the windshield.
You wouldn't want the headlights to turn on all the time when wipers are on automatic mode. Now why they don't turn on for regular modes, I'm not sure, but probably consistency: if you don't turn them on for automatic mode, but you do for regular mode, then that's going to be too confusing for the driver. Maybe they should come on when the wipers are activated in any mode and stay on for a certain number of seconds (by "stay on", I mean actively clearing the windshield, not just waiting for water to appear). But this might be too unreliable in practice?
The lithium battery fires I’ve seen associated with BEVs accelerate faster (edit, was: are quite a bit more vigorous) than those I’ve seen associated with gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles. Shouldn’t the violence of the fire (not just the number of incidents) figure into the safety calculus?
I would be far more concerned with the acceleration of the fire. If I have plenty of notice to get away from the vehicle and to keep others away, who cares how vigorous it is? Either way, the car will burn down. I don't think it matters how long that will take.
That’s what I was trying to say but didn’t successfully, the BEV fires I’ve seen in testing accelerate quite a bit faster. Plus, the battery tends to be located below the passenger compartment, whereas fuel fires tend to start in the engine compartment. It doesn’t feel like the two types of vehicle fires are directly comparable by frequency of incidents alone.
At what point do Musk’s statements represent a moderate legal risk?
For the sake of argument, could Musk’s statement, along with his very public insistence of being actively engaged in the design process, demonstrate a cavalier disregard for proper safety engineering at the management level (outside acceptable industry practice) and so a defective process?
