This brilliantly captures what I see from YouTubers who do off-road vehicle recovery. People are super nice until the bill comes, then you learn “only release the vehicle on payment.”

One-half of a percent of a million is 5000. That’s what makes “cyber” stuff so different than IRL, “every crook in his mom’s basement anywhere” is a much different threat than “every crook in your neighborhood.”

Concorde didn’t use afterburner during cruise. There’s a lot of discussion from pilots and engineers in a long thread https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question-7.h... describing the actual flight profile.

All that shows is some surfaces at least 140°F. Which is still effing hot, but there are only three colors in the legend.

Doesn’t a bankrupt Twitter lead to someone else buying it for a fire sale price that presumably could just change it back to … Twitter?

Yes.

1000 cars in 12 hours is 42 seconds each. Does JetSplash really move them through a single stall that fast? The wash I go to in the spring (salt removal) takes about 600 seconds. Just asking since that makes it more like a factor of 2 than 10.

I don't know the gear JetSplash uses, but the link below looks roughly the same as what I've seen them use. They claim 400-800 car per day.

I've seen other sites state up to 120 cars per hour. Assuming 750/day @ $20 wash, that's an annual gross of about $5.5M. I doubt they're running at that rate consistently, just at peak. But I would be surprised if $2M wasn't the average in town. That's pretty good for a low labor enterprise.

https://www.broadwayequipment.com/conveyor-car-wash/

I'm guessing OP was referring to the average over multiple stalls.

Friday the 13th would always come on a Saturday, is all.

Well, he proved a theorem. He chose to define a “godlike object” and showed in every carefully-defined “world” such an object exists. Saying that this “proves the existence of god” is … a bit of an overreach, don’t you think?

No, I don’t. Also that’s how we prove literally anything. There is always a model, because we don’t have direct access to reality. So if your bar is that high you’re going to have to call climate change and relativity a bit of an overreach too.

Gödel's proof is an example of deductive reasoning. It falls apart if you don't accept its axioms.

The case for climate change, or for relativity, is made inductively, by empirical observation.

The two cases are not remotely comparable.

Funny you should say that on account of it’s well known that deduction is never wrong and induction sometimes is.

A proper deductive argument that contains no errors will be valid, but it won't necessarily be sound if the premises are incorrect. In that sense deduction can most certainly be "wrong".