Explanations aside, if in the slight chance it's workably better than ion thrusters for certain applications, that's great. If it turns out to be snake oil or a hoax, that would not be a huge surprise either.
There are independent replications, which IMO mostly rule out hoaxes -- or at least greatly reduce the likelihood to below other explanations. It's tough to create an independently reproducible hoax.
Right now my guess is either measurement artifact or some form of obscure but conventional effect like EM interaction with the surround environment. That's most likely.
If those can be ruled out, then we're in new physics territory.
You're forgetting mass-energy equivalence. <x> energy / <y> thrust is a specific impulse, once you work in the factor of c^2 (that being the minimum amount of mass you need to burn to get the energy to produce the thrust.)
In this case, for instance, they are saying they think it produced 20 uN with an input of 700w. That works out to an effective specific impulse of 2.5x10^9m/s as an upper limit (yes, this is tachyonic. One of the problems with this drive is that it throws conservation of energy and momentum out the window...), assuming we could convert mass to energy directly. (If you're using D-T fusion, it's a specific impulse of ~9.7x10^6m/s instead as an upper limit, assuming 339.72 TJ/kg. Other reactions are lower.)
If you're assuming solar panels or some other external power source, then the only real difference between this and a laser is that this produces a constant factor more thrust per energy input. Sure, it's reactionless - but, effectively, so is a neutrino source, for instance. All that means is that you don't need to be as careful as to which direction you burn in.
Ion thrusters still require expendable fuel as well as an electrical power supply, if you can cut out the need for expendable fuel that would mean allot for space travel especially to the outer solar system and beyond.
The original was http://waitersonwheels.com, which I used in the 1990's. It started as a catalog-based service, which waiter.com knocked off and improved.
It's not a defensible business model unless there's some exclusivity agreements with restaurants on the menu. (too tasty to resist.)
If a patch can be made by upstream in good faith to addressa vuln before CRD, embargoing until after its users have had a reasonable chance to deploy it is a very good thing. If the upstream is not responsive, that's different. The point is not artificially creating fires and surprises unnecessarily, which put thousands or millions of systems at avoidable risk. Patches need to get out there as soon as possible when good faith is working and PoCs need to be released anyhow if upstream is unresponsive. This accountability will ensure that preventative, cooperative fixes are released as soon as possible with minimum damage. Because of a premature PoC were used to takedown life/safety or major business concerns, there will be additional fallout. Playing fast and loose and dismissing concerns of large-scale installed bases is not a strategy, it's either ignorance or hubris. Causing emergencies and putting people unnecessary risk is nearly always preventable bullshit. There are only a few cases where upstream developers are unable, incapable or unwilling to patch something in good faith that it should be released... And in some cases where the fix is tricky, there should be an occasional, mutually-agreed short deferment. Again, avoid unnecessary harm to users by applying common sense rather than unrealistic dogma "full disclosure right now, fuck everyone else."
Interesting, reminds me of the graffiti robot for some reason . [0] Would be a neat follow on project to rapidly "print" via an actual loom to weave an entire fabric panel as the display. The thread aspect is neat however it comes off as an e-ink shortcut. It's quite an engineering feat that the majority of it works reliably as it appears (only a few dead "pixel" of thousands).
I agree. I think there are two distinct usability issues to address: content size and font size. That is, how much real estate the virtual viewport occupies in proportion to the display AND the size of font relative to the reader's ability to read comfortably. The trick is sensible adjustments to style attributes to keep layout working properly on the vast majority of devices no matter the zoom level or default font size, within reason.
As a user example, when I load the HN front-page on an iOS device in portrait mode, I'm lazy and switch to rotate to landscape mode to see more without trimming edges and scrolling around. On most sites, I expect to be able to double-tap on a paragraph column to toggle maximize-fit-to-display-width mode and return regular all-content-on-display-width mode.
If some site prevents this, I will not buy their products or use their services, because it's a signal they don't care about usability and will inevitably waste people's time. That's a form of laziness and failure that should not be rewarded. There are usually competitors that want you to switch to their brand (except with govts). Those annoying jQuery Mobile one-sized-fits-all sites deployed by pharmacies, banks, govts and so on.
