Actually no. In the movie, there is already gravity present in the hub - generated by rotating this large cylindrical hub. Running in such hub would increase gravity slightly but no running is needed at all! Just being in such hub is comparable to running in cylinder mentioned in the paper.
Running in small (10m) diameter cylinder increase gravity significantly without need to spin the cylinder.
Anyway to minimize effects of Coriolis force in spinning cylinder, I think that the size of the cylinder would be significantly larger than the size in the movie.
Are you thinking of the space station? The running scene was in the interplanetary ship, with a 12m diameter cylinder spinning just enough for moon-level gravity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_One
"not white" isn't a race or demographic. african americans aren't the same as african-africans, and those are different from mexican, indian, asian, native american, etc.
and given how indians and east asians tend to be the overall wealthiest demographics, plus the "hispanic paradox", suggests that this is a way more complex issue then you're framing it.
You can use delta-v, so the closest is the distance rocket use the least fuel/mass. It is a very good measure how easily to get to that destination in space.
Also some of us here work at public companies and these systems are under scope since finance needs away to share/edit financial documents with each other. These big firms have soc1s. Running our own infra would put that infra under scope which is a huge burden.
I understand that 16GiB (16*2e30 bytes) chip is present (delivered to user), but some of it is broken and not available (industry standard). Therefore capacity is less than 16GiB. Also I believe that there is a threshold, that manufacturer is using to throw away chip that are too broken to be sold. Ok so far.
So proper declared capacity should be threshold value (minimum) or threshold to maximum value declared range. I understand that this proper capacity is not very nice round number.
Problem has past: Around 2000, manufacturers started using GB (10e9) instead of GiB (2e30) that gives them some margin (7%) for chip defects. Later margin was not enough, so they started using more misleading specs like this. It seems that margin is at least 10% nowadays instead of <7% in the past.
Personally, I would be satisfied with stated margin size (like 7%, 10%, 12% etc) to maximum capacity, f.e. "USB flash drive 16GB max capacity, at least 90% usable."
> Problem has past: Around 2000, manufacturers started using GB (10e9) instead of GiB (2e30) that gives them some margin (7%) for chip defects
It actually started somewhere around 1995 -- with mechanical disk makers all choosing to advertise GB drives using the power of ten instead of the power of two, while maintaining the same labeling on the outer box.
And the reason was not to account for "chip defects" -- it allowed them to ship slightly less capacity, but print on the box a number that appeared larger to those who did not read the 4 point type fine print on the back.
Me neither, so I'm reasonably disappointed. Can I propose a method?
We should shoot something really sticky up there, creating a snowball effect. When it becomes to heavy it will fall and disintegrate. We will have some collateral damage, but you cant make an omelet without breaking an egg.
I agree, I even know people who want to discuss something, but my role is not to respond too much, just nod or acknowledge things from time to time and primary to listen as their thought gets more clarified by the moment they said them aloud ... :-)
Running in small (10m) diameter cylinder increase gravity significantly without need to spin the cylinder.
Anyway to minimize effects of Coriolis force in spinning cylinder, I think that the size of the cylinder would be significantly larger than the size in the movie.