>Think of where batteries have gone in the last 20 years. Where will they be in 30 years from now?

Is this actually a reliable trend though? We're talking about charge density (energy per unit mass) specifically. Lithium battery tech was invented in the 70's and developed significant charge density refinements up through the 90's. (This is based on a bit of research and my historical recollection; I was unable to find a reliable chart of lithium battery tech charge density over time.) And although there have certainly been further improvements over the last 20 years, my understanding is that they have been incremental improvements and with diminishing returns. Although we may still be able to squeeze out a few small improvements, lithium battery storage tech has already been developed to store close to its maximum theoretical charge density.

Additionally, lithium battery tech is close to the best theoretical electrochemical scenario, so there isn't some new chemical battery tech "waiting in the wings".

At this point, further significant advances in battery charge density will likely require a fundamental breakthrough; and these are uncommon and unpredictable.

• Shell = The "command line". (More specifically, the part of the command-line interface that prompts you for commands, runs commands, and interfaces with the underlying OS.)
• TUI = Terminal User Interface, a basic text-based interface that typically uses a text terminal as a grid of characters
• Reverse Shell = A way of getting a terminal/command line on a remote system, especially when that remote system is not directly accessible on the Internet
• Flimsy Reverse Shell = A reverse shell heavily limited by bandwidth, latency, reliability, or other restrictions. Makes using it a pain.
• ^C = Abbreviation for Ctrl-C. Usually used to kill the currently running command in a terminal.
• netcat = A command that is able to connect and receive connections and perform basic data transmission. Can be used to establish a rudimentary reverse shell.

Explanation:

Most work using commands on terminals is very low-bandwidth, so is particularly well-suited to slow or unreliable connections. However, programs that offer a terminal-based UI often use far more bandwidth (and other resources) in sending UI updates over a terminal. Sometimes, an overly aggressive terminal UI can send so many updates over a slow connection that the connection just gets "frozen" waiting for all that data. If one accidentally does this, the usual response is to try to kill the program sending data ASAP to limit the amount of time spent waiting to receive it; typically by smashing Ctrl-C repeatedly until it stops. However, the netcat program itself (unlike proper remote terminal commands like SSH and telnet) will intercept the Ctrl-C and will exit itself; in this example, ending the remote shell.

> I don't want to be a man like this.

Hate to break it to you, but an individual is defined by their actions - you are a man like this. But you're young, and there's plenty of time to change. Stop hiding, from yourself and others; come to terms with your decisions, admit to them, and accept the consequences (and no, the consequences won't be fun). And if you're sincere about your desire to change, keep that in mind next time you feel the impulse to flirt while already committed.

I can't believe I have to explain this, but ...

>Atheists really says this and think they got their "gotcha moment" lmao

is not simply mimicry, as you seem to have understood. Rather, it is a pithy example of the irony of

>atheist folk might not be able to have a conversation with religious people without sounding condescending

>Atheists really says this and think they got their "gotcha moment" lmao

Eh, that's not really a fair comparison. One of these might be real, and one is purely fantasy. Unicorns aren't that far removed from horses, so it wouldn't surprise me if such an animal existed at one point.

Nah, this is just for fun - but it's amusing (although not entirely surprising) that religious folk might not be able to distinguish between a joke and a logical argument.

Even if this weren't just a joke, a weak god doesn't equal a nonexistent god. Atheists' actual reasons are backed up by logic and critical thinking.

Honestly, after reading that description of the study, it really doesn't seem much more nuanced to me. Maybe just a little. As much as I hate to say it, Fox's take seems mostly accurate. The study description at the link is highly repetitive and full of filler words, but here's essentially what I got out of it:

>The research project [...] studies [...] white pigment [...] in a historical, aesthetic, and critical lens — focusing on how the pigment transformed surfaces in art, architecture, and design

At this point, I wasn't really sure where it was going. White pigment transforms surfaces by making them white, right? Maybe some art history study kind of thing?

>The primary research question is: What are the cultural and aesthetic changes instigated by titanium white

Aesthetic changes? Again ... it's white paint, it makes things white. Cultural changes? Still not really sure where this is going.

>NorWhite connects challenging topics - whiteness, technological innovation, and mass-exploitation of natural resources - in a single case study

Definitely getting weird vibes at this point. The first claim seems to indicate that it's some kind of art history study. Then the second claim ties in some sort of nonspecific "cultural changes" with the aesthetics initially mentioned. And now, we've gone from "focusing on how the pigment transformed surfaces in art" to "whiteness, technological innovation, and mass-exploitation of natural resources". At this point, the term "whiteness" could potentially still be being used to refer to the pigment; but we've definitely taken a different direction.

>Whiteness is one of today’s key societal and political concerns [...] seek to cope with our racial past

Ah, they've clarified that they do indeed use "whiteness" specifically to refer to race.

>It was not until the Norwegian chemist Dr. Peder Farup (1875 – 1934) together with chemist and industrialist Dr. Gustav Jebsen (1861 – 1923) discovered an advanced chemical method [... full paragraph about the pigment chemistry]

Oh I see, there's a scientific aspect as well.

>By weaving together historical, critical, aesthetic, and artistic methods

Oh ... I guess not. That was just a description of the discovery; the actual study seems to exclude anything science-related.

Picking apart all the filler, the only things that it seems to clearly reference as aims of the study are a) some kind of nonspecific aesthetic study on the color white? and b) the impact of white paint on racism. So Fox's characterization of the study "finding out if white paint is racist" isn't precisely accurate, it's pretty clear that the study is focused on drawing connections between race and white paint.

I initially thought that this was funded through tax dollars, which I'd classify as a misuse of funds. But what I find odd is that it actually seems to be funded by companies that manufacture the pigment. From this perspective it makes sense for the study to be primarily motivated by marketing purposes, but I can't figure out why a paint company would want to tie their product to racism. My best guess is that the lack of cohesiveness in the study's aims arises from this; it's possible that the sponsoring companies wanted the study to be a PR piece focusing on the history and aesthetics of their product, but someone else involved (government perhaps? not sure) also wanted to tie "racial whiteness" into it.

Regardless, it looks to be a terribly non-cohesive study, seemingly without any defined objective or purpose. Just something about the aesthetics of white paint, and something about how white paint ties to race.

I'll second keepass (specifically, keepassxc). It is indeed a little more work to set up, especially if you want proper synchronization; but for something as critical to my life as a password manager, I don't trust any third party to act responsibly and in my best interest. It also has some neat features for "power users", like SSH agent integration, so all my private keys can be stored encrypted with the password database. Currently have keepassxc set up to sync through nextcloud and require both a master password and static key (usb stick) to unlock.

Like you and others have said, court is probably the only way to definitively resolve this and get recompense; but taking family to court is going to be very messy. It's more practical if that wing of the family is so bad that you're going to go low- or no-contact; but otherwise, the social consequences of dragging family through court might outweigh any monetary recompense you might get.

Regardless, the little goblin needs to be taught a lesson, both for his good and for others'. Destroying a laptop like that is just malicious, and may indicate that the child has no concept of what harm to others feels like. Aunt's family says they can't pay for the laptop - sure. Perhaps an appropriate consequence would be to collect enough of the goblin's favorite toys to approximately equal the value, and then give them to you in exchange. If you want to make sure the lesson sticks, you could visibly pour soda all over them, or destroy them/make them disappear in a manner of your choosing. This doesn't fix the laptop, but hopefully would be enough to teach the child a lasting lesson.

And if the parents are still unwilling to cooperate with disciplining their child or otherwise making right the situation; court's always an option.

Another idea for how to fix this: This is a bit risky and very tricky, and only might work, but is less invasive than properly isolating and repairing the individual wires.

The part of the cord that's broken contains 2 even tinier wires. It's possible that these 2 tinier wires are themselves intact (except for the insulation) and are just shorting out on each other. IF this is the case, you may be able to get away with isolating the 2 tinier wires and then casting them in epoxy. You'd probably need some kind of tiny hook-like tool and a magnifier sufficient to work with the tiny individual strands. If both conductors are unbroken and you are able to physically separate the strands, that ear bud should start working again. If successful, the area could be cast in epoxy to add some insulation and rigidity.

Seconding this. It can be done, but is a major pain to do so. The little part of the cord that's broken has 2 different even tinier wires inside (in addition to the unbroken cord next to it, which also contains 2 tiny wires). Both wired need to be separated and repaired. You'll likely need to very carefully cut off the little plastic strain relief piece there (this in itself may be quite difficult to do without causing further damage). After removing that piece, the individual wires need to be separated and individually repaired, probably with solder and heat shrink tube. Soldering stuff that small isn't easy and you'll definitely need to get some spare material to practice on if you haven't done it before. Then add a larger piece of heat shrink around both repaired wires. Rebuilding the strain relief piece might be tough, but doable if you build an epoxy mold for it or something.

/u/gilareefer explained how the mechanism works, but to answer your question more generally, this type of switch mechanism is used because it's very resistant to oxidation/corrosion, and because a traditional mechanism used with a bimetallic strip would be prone to arcing.

The temperature-sensitive part is a bimetallic strip shaped in such a way so as to "tilt" one way or the other based on temperature due to the difference in the metals' thermal expansion coefficients. A simple switch mechanism based on this might be to just allow the strip (or a contact attached to the strip) to touch another contact in a certain position; but this type of switch is prone to corrosion over time due to being exposed to the elements. The complicated liquid-metal-drop-inside-sealed-vial mechanism prevents corrosion because there's no oxygen inside the vial.

Additionally, a simple switch contact mechanism used here would likely cause arcing and damage to the contacts since the switch would open and close extremely slowly. Things like normal light switches prevent this by integrating a "snap" mechanism to very quickly open and close the circuit; but a bimetallic strip supplies very little force, not enough to operate such a snap mechanism. The liquid-metal-inside-sealed-vial mechanism solves this problem by a) surface tension keeps the drop of mercury together so once the vial tilts even a little the whole drop will quickly slide over and complete the connection; and b) any damage due to arcing would be minimized in a low-oxygen environment inside the vial.

For both of these reasons, mercury metal is used because it's the only metal that's liquid across the usual range of human environmental temperatures, so is the only metal suitable for use in this type of switch mechanism.