I think there are political issues but I don't think guarding the site is one of them. The site would need to be remote to avoid conflicting with existing land use, and short of using nukes, how much damage could anyone do to a facility spread out over half a million square kilometers?

24 million would be a rounding error to any significant new power infrastructure. Coal and nuclear plants cost in the billions to build.

The real issue with building any kind of massive solar installation is getting power to where it's needed. For instance, a massive solar plant in Africa is useless to Europe, because there's no effective way of getting the power there, not in the amounts needed.

The military already has weaponized fusion devices, and fusion power plants are never going to be as compact as fission ones, so it's unlikely they're going to care about investing in the tech.

Flying cars are called helicopters and they've existed for quite a while. The only lie was where you'd need to be on the economic spectrum to have or use one.

I've read this headline so many times in the past 20 years.

I get that everything undergoes a Lorenz transformation, but I don't quite get what frequency shifting means in terms of a fermion.

With a photon if you know the frequency it's supposed to have, you can measure the frequency it has and see the delta.

What's the comparable measure of an electron?

If you're traveling relative to the radiation source (or vice versa, depending on how you look at it) then yes, electromagnetic radiation will be blue shifted if you're approaching the source and redshifted if you're moving away from the source.

That kind of shift is (I believe) the first evidence we had of the expansion of the universe.

If you're asking about other kind of radiation, like alpha and beta particles, I have if the relative velocity has any impact on how they're perceived. I mean an electron is an electron, regardless of velocity, as far as I know.

> Yes, the materials aren't there yet, but they are getting closer every year.

The Moon is getting further away every year too but I'm not going to invest in any company whose business plan involves solving the "missing moon" problem.

Your 80% of the work concept is a fantasy. Losing weight literally feels like starving yourself. Try going 48 hours without eating anything or drinking anything other than water. It should be easy right? Losing weight is basically experiencing that sensation, continuously, for months at least and potentially for years or forever, because your body wants to revert.

This is just an appalling take that overlooks the fact that there are wealthy fat people. Like "wealthy enough to have a personal trainer and a full time personal chef" people.

I'm not personally that rich but I still earn enough to buy pre-cooked meals from services like Factor 75 or meals that I still need to cook from services like Blue Apron and it doesn't fucking help.

Being overweight and losing that weight is so monstrously hard that the only way to do so reliably is to undergo surgery that permanently impacts your diet and lifestyle.

If your take of people just being lazy were valid you'd expect some percentage of people to be able to turn it around, but for every success story you might see here on Reddit or in other media, there are so many people stuck in obesity that the people who succeed are basically a statistical fluke.

https://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/fat-officially-incurable-according-to-science