Very Interesting!

A new study came out literally few days ago that considers all of the lifecycle in different parts of the world: https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021

It takes in consideration both influence of ecological additives to fuel for standard cars and non-green energy used for charging electrical vehicles, and still EVs win.

In Europe where is a lot of renewable powerplants the total emissions per lifecycle are up to two-thirds lower, in India with much more emissions created in power plants it is still up to 20-30 % better to use EVs. There is a nice visualisation in the study article.

There have been studies about this. The idea is that it takes about four years worth of carbon dioxide emissions from a traditional gas-powered car to mine the stuff to make one electric vehicle. So the upfront cost is maybe higher, but it pays itself off as long as you keep driving it beyond that four year mark.

Also technology will improve to make batteries more efficient, require fewer resources, etc.

The ICE needs materials that have to be mined too. Steel isn't really better than copper, silicon and lithium.

But the power generation alone is a huge game changer. Even if you'd fuel it 100% from coal powerplants you'd save CO² because a modern powerplant has roughly 40% efficiency (transport, battery, E-motor reduce that by 10% giving a total of 36%) and a ICE has less than 20% efficiency. And you can obviously get it from renewable sources too.

The main issue is that combustion loses efficiency when running in the wrong operation point. A powerplant will always run at it's optimum RPM

Plus the power generation associated with charging everyone's vehicle.

Turning fossil fuels into energy at a power plant is a lot more efficient than distributing gasoline to individual cars and having every car convert it into energy through a combustion engine. Power plants can be a lot more sophisticated, take advantage of economies of scale, and implement features that just aren't practical to include in cars.

For a simple example, even if you made a power plant that was simply a giant car engine burning gasoline, you could use its heat exhaust as the energy input to a separate steam engine, capturing much of the energy a car would just lose to the surrounding air. But you would never put a second engine into a car just to capture the extra energy, and if you did, manufacturing and maintaining that engine would offset a lot of the savings. For a power plant, though, it's a no-brainer, and for reasons like this even a 'dirty' power plant generating electricity can be 3x as energy-efficient as a gasoline-powered car.

That's obviously before you get into the ability of electrical systems to gradually make more and more use of geothermal energy, wind energy, solar energy, and so on. Then you get into the other benefits, like more centralized pollution (so the power plant can have efficient pollution-capturing or filtering systems it wouldn't be practical to attach to every single car separately), less waste material and waste production associated with maintenance, etc.

In addition to other comments about the carbon footprint of an individual ICE vs a power plant - the amount of electronics in an electric car is not that much higher than an ICE car. Modern combustion engines are all driven by electronics (starting with the ECU, and injection electronics), the ABS system, stability control systems, etc. + the in car dashboard of course that also works with a lot of electronics. ICE needs also to drive an alternator which is basically an electric engine (used the opposite way obviously).

So comparing the amount of electronics, the difference is not that much at all, since you remove the injection electronics but add the power regulation for electric motors...

No, it confers passive immunity that last as long as antibodies circulate the system

Since the baby only received the antibodies, his own cells never learned to produce the antibodies. To gain active immunity the baby’s cells have to come in contact with the virus or antigen from the virus. This antigen is absorbed and presented to memory B cells who in turn make the antibodies

No. You’re only giving the baby antibodies against the virus, not exposing them to a viral antigen. Think of it like mom giving the baby an infusion of antibodies like when people in hospitals are given monoclonal antibodies to combat an active infection

So breast milk antibodies are mostly IgA. IgA is the antibody that stays in your gut or on your sinuses or surface of your lungs to protect mucosal areas from infection. So babies that are breastfed have a very modest decrease in the number of enteroviral infections-the gut viral infections are prevented by the IgA.

Now, IgA is a protein, and most proteins that big don't get into the bloodstream when you eat them. So it isn't going to help protect you from pneumonia. Unless you're snorting the breastmilk, which having seen the way some babies eat might be possible.

The bigger protection is that during the final trimester of pregnancy, IgG, the protective antibody that you want in your blood, is actively pumped across the placenta directly into the baby. So babies are born with many of hte antibodies their mothers made, The half life of these antibodies is about a month, so they have decent protection from many things for a few months. But by 4-6 months these are gone and the baby has to rely on its own antibodies it makes.

No mothers passing antibodies to their infants usually only lasts upwards of 4 months I mean when the kid hits about 4 months old that that immuno protection provided by the mother via breast milk is pretty much over because the child's own immune system has picked up to the point it will actually fight off any antibodies the mother tries to pass on to the infant because the child is developing its own system for protection and immunity.

Babies need to be vaccinated To actually have long lasting protection against any disease especially covered 19

Most spam telemarketers are using VOIP services that allow you to write in whatever phone number you want. A reverse phone number lookup in today’s environment simply makes no sense.

[entfernt]

The answer is it's not difficult or rather it did not use to be. Twenty years ago it worked like it should work. Then the phone companies took the results offline and and sold them to services that resell the results to you.

I use https://www.usphonebook.com a simple old school reverse lookup. Also, back when I had Majicjack, it would show the spoofed number, then the phone screen would blank out, and the real number would pop up. Had a lot of fun with that. Don't know if it still works that way these days.

[entfernt]

So causing tides by itself does not really require energy. The tides appear to be moving because the Earth is rotating underneath the "bulge" of water caused by the tides. So, if you were far away from Earth and not rotating, the bulges of water would always be (almost) aligned with the line between the Earth and the Moon (with a larger bulge on the side closer to the Moon and a smaller one on the opposite side). If the Earth were a perfectly smooth sphere with no friction, this actually wouldn't take any energy to obtain, the Earth would just rotate underneath a non-spherical mass of water.

But, since the Earth is not a perfectly smooth sphere, there is energy being lost due to friction. As you can imagine, this is a rather small amount, when all is said in done, as there isn't a ton of friction between water and the ground, but there is some. That friction is causing the Earth to slowly slow down its rotation.

That energy is actually transferred to the Moon through a rather complicated mechanism. Since the Earth rotates faster than the Moon, the friction actually "pushes" the bulge of the water a little ahead of the line between the Earth and Moon. The bulge being a little ahead of that line actually provides a tiny little tug on the Moon, making it orbit just a little bit faster. This is minuscule, as you might imagine, but over a long time (billions of years), it starts to add up. When the Moon was formed, days on Earth were only ~5 hours long, and the Moon was only about 14,000 miles (~22k km) away from Earth. Now, the Moon is about 250k miles (~400k km) away from us, and the Earth's orbit revolution takes 24 hours.

The Moon gaining energy does two things- it pushes it further away and at the same time slows it down. To understand why, if you look at orbits, orbits are "bound systems" (meaning they have a negative total energy) where the negative potential energy is greater than the positive kinetic energy. So, as orbiting systems gain energy, the energy of the total system must get larger, which really means closer to zero. To do that, the potential energy gets smaller (move further away) and at the same time, kinetic energy must decrease. This is why Mercury (the closest planet to the Sun) moves so much faster than Neptune (the furthest). All of this leads to the Moon leaving us at a rate of ~1.5 inches (4 cm) a year..

Edit: changed orbit to revolution

The energy comes from the earth slowing down its rotation. Part of that energy goes to the moon, which gains "height" from the earth (greater height=greater potential energy) and the rest becomes heat lost through friction.
Tidal losses are not just water sloshing around, its complex..

Thermodynamics and entropy are a thing so if it moves it loses.

At least a bit must go to the friction within say continental plaques rubbing around. The earth inside is partially molten and something goes there as well.
Another fraction (can be minuscule) can probably be found in the atmosphere. Even if 800 times less dense than water at sea level, air flows would be affected by gravity and wind dissipates energy through friction.

I wish I could find values for these other values.

The earths rotation is slowed down by the moons gravity. As the moon pulls on the earth, it deforms the earths. Part of that deformation is that water pools at the near and far side of the earth with respect to the moon. Those are your high tides.

The deformation slows the rotation of the earth by a tiny bit. The earth is slightly more pointy towards the moon. As the pointy bit moves away from the moon, the moon pulls on it, slowing the earth down. Meanwhile, the earth deforms a bit again, creating heat in the process.

The rotation of the moon has already been slowed so much by the gravity of earth, that it is no longer rotation. The same side faces the earth constantly.

i’m like 100% sure everyone is missing what OP is asking and everyone is breaking down the mechanics of tides. pretty sure he’s asking bigger picture where is the energy coming from that causes the earth to spin and then that leads to the sun and how much does it have left until it runs out type of question.

edit : he’s just asking someone to explain the family tree of what causes what to move and how much until it runs out because its finite.

I feel like most of the answers here are missing the point. You asked:

I know the moon's gravity causes it but from the looks of it, it seems to be creating energy out of nothing which should be impossible, like, does it come from the energy of the moon's orbit?

The energy comes from the Big Bang initially, at least that is until someone proves that expanding space is also creating energy.

When particles of matter eventually condensed (1 second to 20 mins after the Big Bang), they were moving around randomly in all directions, but if you considered only a small volume of the universe then you'd probably see that some were moving in one direction more than others.

As space expanded and cooled, particles were attracted to each other and clumped up. Because locally more were moving in one direction than another, they formed large spinning clouds that slowly collapsed.

The energy of motion that the Moon and the Earth have came from that initial motion that the particles had.

If so then does that mean the moon will eventually crash into the earth in however million years?

As others have said, energy can be swapped between physical objects like the Earth and the Moon. The Earth has kinetic energy because of its spin, and the Moon can steal some of that energy via gravitational interactions. That energy will give the Moon a bit of a push and make its orbit bigger, ultimately leading to it moving farther away from Earth over time, and because it's stealing some of the Earth's 'spin' energy the rotation of the Earth is slowing down and our days are getting longer.

The fear was a pilot of a top secret military spy plane could defect with the plane during a mission over Russia.

I am sure Russia would have gladly let them live a life of luxery in trade for the plane.

It was assumed pilots would be less tempted if doing so would be abandoning their wife and/or kids back in the States.

The SR-71 was one of the most valuable intelligence assets the country had, and it was so fast that it was pretty much impossible to intercept. It would have been an intelligence goldmine for any other country (specifically, the Soviet Union).

Married men are much, much less likely to defect than pilots who wouldn't be leaving anything behind.

Did they screen the spouses to make sure they wouldn’t drive the pilots to defect to get away from them? Not sure military marriages are known for longevity.

[entfernt]

Who else assumed the wife was the copilot?

ELI5 why I get tired after drinking too much coffee?! Not because it's worn off, but because I've drank it.

Because caffeine has multiple effects on multiple systems. Blocking tiredness is just one of them. It is also a central nervous system stimulant that raises heart rate etc. It's this effect that can take you to being "wired" above your baseline alertness level.

Curious, what is consider a high daily dose of caffeine?

[entfernt]

what does “wired” mean?

If you ask the right questions - questions that continually split the list of all possible people in half - you can uniquely identify any human on Earth in just 33 questions.

The questions therefore should be vague (that is, applies to about half of everyone) so that you eliminate as many possibilities in one question as possible, no matter what the answer is. If it's too specific, the chance of the answer being "yes" is much smaller, and to worsen the matter, if the answer is "no", then you only eliminated a small number of people with your question.

Akinator just uses a binary phylogeny tree similar to how you might identify plants of animals. So it asks a question "is your character male or female" then depending on the answer it can narrow the pool down by eliminating the impossibilities. As the pool gets smaller and smaller it can ask more specific questions, or it can ask a vague question that only has a few people in it remaining. For example the question "does your character wear glasses" is extremely broad. But since he has already asked "Is you character male, fictional, younger than 20, from a fantasy book, a wizard, parents killed by the Dark Lord" then it may have it narrowed down to only a few and the question "Does your character wear glasses?" Gives an answer.

Now when you successfully stump Akinator, it asks you to create a new question that it can use to differentiate between the answer and guess he got wrong. And by doing that it can find key words in that difference to categorize the character into another group to help narrow it down.

Because many vague questions describe one very specific person.

There's a lot men in the world, and there's a lot of blonde people and there's a lot of people under 165 cm in height. But there's really not a lot of people who are all three of those things, so despite all 3 questions being very vague, they end up describing a much more specific subset than any individual question on it's own would.

Akinator just keeps asking vague questions until the subset of people who fit all of the answers is narrow enough to make a guess.

Akinator is struggling with Ace Ventura right now. 80 questions in and it guessed Earnest P Worl, and Bob from what about Bob.

Have you ever played the game Guess Who? It's a game where you have to identify your opponent's character by answering yes/no questions. You can ask something like "do they have blue eyes?" "do they have facial hair?" With each passing question, you narrow down the pool of candidates. Eventually, you eliminate everyone but one.

Akinator works the same way, except it's a much large pool of candidates. However, they use user input to help them. Let's say that you pick a character that nobody else has. Akinator will remember all your answers, and should someone think of that character at another time, Akinator will use your answers to help guide them to the correct solution. The more often people use the same character, the more refined the path the solution can get.

Most of the powder is sugar, and maybe a pinch of salt. The sugar is white making the powder quite pale. However when you add water the sugar is dissolved turning invisible. But the pigmentation that creates the color does not become invisible. So you only see the deep color of the pigments rather then the light color of the sugar.

The dye and the sugar is stirred and revolves,

but the dye sticks around while the sugar dissolves!

[entfernt]

Warm air can hold the moisture indefinitely, but when it collides with a mass of cold air the moisture falls as rain.

Some places do have a near-constant mixture of warm humid air and cold dry air that will produce long, slow rain systems.

Most of the rest of the world will only experience this periodically - you’ll either be under the humid air or under the cold air, not directly under the boundary where the storms are.

These boundaries can persist for days and sweep across entire continents as one air mass overpowers another, but they’ll only be over any particular location for a few hours.

As a Seattlite I have no idea what you are talking about. It's a nearly constant drizzle here for 6 months every year.

Pacific Northwest checking in on this...

We (PNW) will during our fall, winter and spring, get cold fronts coming down out of the gulf of Alaska.

These cold fronts will be wide and deep and laden with cold, wet air.

The result when they hit land, and orographic lifting takes effect, is that the rainfall seems to go on for days on end.

It's not usually a heavy rain. Typically we get an inconsistent series of rain types that will last for days on end. The sky is grey and goes from misty to rain to spritzes to sprinkles and showers, sometimes downpour, but mostly just a cold, constant drip.

Natives don't own or use an umbrella. Likely you will own several types of North Face or similar rain jackets that range from Light weight for warm rain, moderate for fall rain, and a heavier rain coat for winter rain.

You will intuitively know, and be able to explain, the difference between waterproof and water resistant, and how long you can stay outside in each.

[entfernt]

Clouds get so heavy with water that the sky cant hold them anymore. But the sky is determined and will hold as much as it can until its strength gives out and it all falls down

More data needs to be collected as we're dealing with something relatively rare already (breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated people). These two articles are a good summary of what we know on the subject and when more studies might come out.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/can-vaccinated-people-get-long-covid-doctors-say-risk-very-n1273970

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/13/delta-surge-could-leave-hundreds-of-thousands-with-long-covid

“We are seeing a very clear reduction in the risk of long Covid in all age groups if you have had two shots of vaccine,” she said. “We know the vaccines really work to reduce your risk of getting infected in the first place, and then if you are unlucky enough to get Covid we are showing your risk of long Covid is much reduced.”

We don't know for sure, but it's expected that it reduces long-haul cases.

1. The breakthrough rate is low.
2. Majority of breakthrough cases are asymptomatic (~27% of detected cases: it's hard to detect asymptomatic breakthrough: most are detected when test is run for hospital admittance for other reasons)
3. The vaccine hasn't been out long enough in quantity to measure long haul once vaccinated.

What we do know is that vaccinated people get less severe Covid when they do have a breakthrough. That would lead to the expectation that the long haul rate would be less.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

We're also seeing that vaccination helps long haul symptoms in many patients (~40%). The mechanism isn't really known yet.

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/vaccines-long-covid

[entfernt]

There hasn't been any high quality prospective epidemiological studies to even know the true incidence rates.

But I'm willing to bet the vaccine efficacy against Long Covid is similar to the efficacy against symptomatic infection, if it is at all similar to other post-viral conditions which I have been following the research of for the past 15 years.

[entfernt]