The source of that comment is provably not someone with deep technical expertise so take that with a grain of salt.

Yes, he has: https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2021/11/28/Spacewar.ht...

> a job at McDonalds

> far less time and effort

Pick one

> So is there really dark matter and dark energy, or is our understanding of the laws of the universe incomplete?

These propositions are not mutually exclusive, the former implies the latter, right?

> they weren't stupid technically, just stupid from a business sense

I wouldn’t call them “stupid technically”, but assuming that there was a hard limit to codec efficiency and to internet bandwidth would at least make them technically naive in my opinion.

Care to explain how trains being delayed or canceled is related to a new technology reducing sound pollution?

The prospects of building something new with this tech are very distant. Just to get an approval for construction in Germany it can take years and then there will be traditional delays along the way. We won’t see it in any meaningful quantities before 2030-2040 - whether this project will survive until then is an open question. The acute service problem on the other side could be addressed by simpler means like investment in IT and better internal processes. My last trip was cancelled one hour in advance, despite that they knew it couldn’t happen days before. I had to visit their travel center, because the app couldn’t apply my seat reservation to alternative route, and that experience was awful. It is very hard to understand why some tech that may never see the light due to bureaucratic hurdles deserves investment at the time where service doesn’t show any signs of improvement.

The article posits it could make approvals to build new rail lines near noise sensitive areas easier.

Implicitly what it’s saying is: “Hurricane reaching a maximum category of X”

That was my assumption, too, but the website shows 110 days since the last cat 5 but 114 days since the last cat 2, and they're not the same event.

More than that: the last cat 5 is "Otis" while the last cat 2 is "Tammy". AFAIK they are named in alphabetical order?

Something seems fishy in this dataset.

There are several region dependent different name lists, just have a look at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone_naming

I mean, you can ask the meteorologists about the process of naming, but those hurricanes actually existed, on the dates suggested, so I'm not sure what's "fishy" about it.

Hurricane Tammy, Cat 2, October 18, 2023: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Tammy

Hurricane Otis, Cat 5, October 22, 2023: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Otis

I believe that the naming relates to which ocean they're forming in, but it's probably good for you to do your own research, so you can clear up any "fishiness" yourself.

I think the poster is suggesting that the Cat 5 should also count as a Cat 2 as Cat 5 is stronger than Cat 2.

What’s your theory/understanding then?

Magic, one assumes.

I can’t help but mildly cringe when I read sentences like “the X that shouldn’t exist”, for example when applied to the Antikythera mechanism. It’s a weird way to mask our ignorance about the item being discussed.