If the math is correct, you'd have an expected life of ~10.2 years. (30*(0.9)^n - n) = 0.
That said, when someone says "it reduces the lifespan by 10%", I'm a bit skeptical of the math. Either they are not properly testing it, or the temperatures are exceeding silicon parameters.
I interpreted this along the lines of it not being a pigment, rather it's black because something about it's physical structure at a small scale causes light to not reflect back. Adding a thin coating of gold would not necessarily change that structure so it would continue not reflecting light.
I wonder if this pattern is considered similar to fractals? Or would that work even better? I recently learned that we have figured out how to produce fractal light from lasers as well which sounds quite interesting and useful.
Maybe the reason radio waves travel poorly through trees is due to the leaves having a fractal-like structure as well? And since light is also just electromagnetic radiation too, it makes sense that this phenomenon could also be used to absorb light itself, if I'm understanding correctly. I wonder if this is how stealth paint on aircraft works?
I'm way out of my depth here, but I think this comparison to the birds of paradise feathers makes the most sense in terms of me visualising what Nxylon would look like with a thin metallic coating
> Adding a thin coating of gold would not necessarily change that structure
My confusion is that I would normally expect a layer of gold not to permit any light to pass through. The underlying structure wouldn't be receiving any light, so there would be no photons to trap. Apparently a layer of gold can be applied thinly enough to transmit appreciable light, though.
This part of the article confused me, because what does a black pigment do if not "inherently prevent light from escaping"? That's kind of just the definition of absorb.
Just from the title it sounded like this was unusual. From reading the article it is not. It doesn't mean the next cycle is starting sooner than expected
From Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin who filed the lawsuit:
> Once installed, Temu can recompile itself and change properties, including overriding the data privacy settings users believe they have in place.
Pretty scary/shocking if this is true
Also from the lawsuit:
>App store security scans don't flag Temu's risks, the complaint alleged, because Temu can "change its own code once it has been downloaded to a user’s phone"—which means it's essentially able to transform into malware once it is past the security checkpoint.
I really want to know if the above is actually possible? I would assume this would break code signing
Reading that report more closely, it appears that the app has many characteristics the analysts considered suspicious but there's no evidence that it can actually bypass OS-level restrictions. The report is from September 2023 so if there were actually Android bugs that allowed permissions bypass I would have expected more security reporting from Google or third parties by now.
> Because of the many twists, the universe could contain copies of itself that might look different from the original, making them less easy to spot in maps of the cosmic microwave background.
Musk didn't buy Twitter to make it profitable.
He bought because he felt freedom of speech was being cratered by the previous owners and moderators of the platform.
> Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions.
Nullification only applies to criminal cases (the discussion here is about civil, not criminal, law) and only in one direction. Lookup "directed verdict of acquittal", "judgement as a matter of law", and "judgement non obstante veredicto".
This is true in one sense (that the jury doesn't always have the final word) but does not seem to actually argue against the point made in loaph's comment.
I think what loaph is saying is that a jury, when making a decision, can make any decision it wants, without consequences (except in exceptional cases, e.g. jury tampering).
The jury might never get to actually make a decision, and a guilty verdict can be overruled by a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (or as a result of an appeal, etc.), but legally, when a jury has made a decision, they can't be punished for making it, even if they were unreasonable in reaching that verdict.
How did whether juries are punished become germane? I thought the question at issue was just consistency vs capriciousness of the courts taken as a whole.
The darker roasts part is mentioned in the article too! It's because darker roasts have less internal water content to begin with since they have typically been roasted longer
30 - (30.1 - 1) = 26.
Doing that again for the next year: 26 - (26.1 - 1) = 22.4.
So you now have 22.4 years of life vs an expected 28.
etc...