I think it's half this and half that Volvo is still a recognizable brand that Americans grew up with. My mother had a Volvo when I was seven. People would react if Volvo was banned. Polestar? What's that?

But Geely can throw down the gauntlet by building Polestars and relabeling them Volvos.

This is probably the reason. Volvo brand is well established in the USA while Polestar is new. So not very Americans would complain if Polestar is banned as compared to Volvo.

The scale bar on the far right "photo" (micrograph?) doesn't make sense. It is only slightly less than half the scale bar on the middle photo (10 nm), but the image is clearly scaled up by much more than 2x. Individual silicon atoms are circled in the right photo, but the covalent radius of silicon is about 0.11 nm, so they should be much smaller if the scale bar is accurate.

The scale bar also got about 50% longer, which would imply a 3x zoom. That also seems about right based on the relative feature sizes. Same thing happened between the first and second image.

>hard to get a real academic position

Tech companies like to rob the cradle, and academic departments hire far more grad students and postdocs than professors. Of course, this is also part of the problem with academic careers.

Why does every organization have to be a pyramid (scheme)?

None of these strategies seem to address the other technological issue hiding beneath the surface, which is that EVs are fundamentally simpler (electric vs combustion motor) and hence should be cheaper than ICE cars when manufacturing pipelines are mature. This would result in lower profits across the car industry even in the absence of international competition. No US manufacturer so far has actually tried to build EVs cheaper than gas cars at scale (Tesla made a little noise and then got distracted), while Chinese manufacturers have no need to worry about cannibalizing the comparatively small domestic ICE market.

Letting the industry guide policymaking seems like it could lead to regulatory capture preventing EVs from reaching the (low!) price points that they should reach. Already the two-track emissions standards and chicken tax make cars too big and the "arms race" of having a bigger car than everyone else to stay safe (at the expense of others) prevents meaningful reform.

The "secret sauce" of being an OEM is integrating a good set of properties that sells at a price point that sells.

Yeah, they have a lot of $$ historically invested in good engines but they don't care that much. They'll buy engines from each other whenever they want. They don't see it as a critical moat.

This is an interesting theory. But do Mexican soccer players do much better at home games?

Not clear what you are asking, but at the international level Azteca is notoriously advantageous…of course top European sides never visit so there’s no general empirical data.

And you won’t get much more from the world cup because the only ceded European side favored to play at Azteca is England in the round of 8.

>Think of the body like a car, suggests Clemence Blouet, a neuroendocrinologist at the University of Cambridge in the UK. You can drive fast, using lots of fuel and putting wear and tear on the auto. Or you can stick to a gentle 15 miles per hour, and the car lasts longer. Living in a high-protein or high-calorie fast lane, she muses, could lead to the accumulation of those pro-aging oxygen radicals. Protein, in particular, also turns on systems that promote growth as well as aging. Restricting the diet could mean fewer of those damaging radicals and less pro-aging actions, keeping the body in smoothly working order for longer.

The implications here for quality of life are pessimistic. Also, the "extension" in the study is about 10%, but driving responsibly can make your car last many times longer.

I think that fasting-mimicking diets are a way to potentially get some of these benefits through occasionally engaging these "slower speed" repair mechanisms without permanently living with bare minimum protein intake. But I also think that at this point so far we've seen fat, sugar, and then all carbohydrates villainized. I don't think that excessive protein is going to turn out to be a good idea either and it will likely also have its turn as villain, especially after all of these new high protein fad foods that are still highly processed junk run their course. People just need to balance their damn nutrients and eat whole foods. There aren't many real shortcuts to health, but we're just desperate to find them due to time poor societies obsessed with hyper-optimization.

Radicals, i think mostly caused by high carbohydrates, ie Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs) which probably mainly are generated by overconsumotion of carbohydrates.

You can have a keto/carnivore diet which, will minimize AGEs, is the meat/protein actually bad for you? (Assuming you avoid the std diet carb overconsumption ofc)

So people are pushed to their limits at work, but a university neuroendocrinologist suggests living a relaxing life that would require blander diet. What a wonderful solution!

I guess I don't understand why this study is suddenly getting attention when these kinds of trials have been going on for years. This one doesn't seem to have a particularly strong methodology or particularly unusual findings. It's just another page in a very, very long record of evidence about vitamin D, and by no means settles any major controversy.

>I always thought that if separating water and salt were easy, our bodies would have evolved to do it so that we'd be able to drink sea water and be fine.

Unfortunately for terrestrial animals, it's just not that simple. Seawater contains a lot of microbial life, some of which can be infectious or toxic. Going to the coastline to drink is potentially hazardous, because it usually means descending a hill on a predictable route which will be attractive to predators. And you need to get pretty far into the water, usually, because of nasty stagnant runoff, which can come from decaying matter that washes ashore, and sand in the surf. That means you risk drowning. Plus, you don't just need the energy for desalination, but the infrastructure (similar problem to real life!), which means more and larger juxtamedullary nephrons in the kidney, which is already a major weak point on the back due to the high blood flow in the kidney. Meanwhile, most of your food contains a lot of water, especially if you're one of the 99.99999% of animal species that doesn't cook it.

They are talking about lithium recovery, but there is a less exotic byproduct I'm interested in. One tonne (≈ 1 m^3) of seawater contains about 1.3 kilograms of magnesium, equivalent to about 4 kg of magnesite ore. Typical desal prices are on the order of $1 per tonne. Magnesite ore goes for about $100 per tonne, so the crude magnesium in a tonne of seawater is worth about $0.40, which could account for a substantial fraction of the desalination cost. (These numbers are very rough.)

Now you ask: why don't we just recover magnesium from brines if it's so great? Magnesium recovery from seawater isn't that easy: typically you have to treat it with some kind of alkali (often Ca(OH)2), so the cost is dominated by the extraction process (your alkali is consumed!), and you're competing with a pretty cheap ore. But if you have a solid byproduct, instead of a liquid, the options for magnesium recovery might be a lot more efficient, potentially offsetting the cost.

The fourth-most-prevalent ion, sulfate, might also be interesting, at least in a hypothetical post-petroleum future where sulfur as a byproduct of fossil fuel extraction is no longer "free". Sulfate is also annoying to extract from seawater, but again if we have a solid, the rules change.

As for the "table" salt itself, I think we'd quickly saturate (!) the market.

>Calcining Mg(OH)₂ -which is what you find in seawater

I'm not sure what to say, because it looks like you are copy-pasting from Wikipedia or something like that. Anyway, Mg(OH)2 is not found in seawater. Mg2+ is found as a dissociated ion. When you dry it, it mostly becomes MgCl2 with a little MgSO4. Mg(OH)2 is produced from seawater by the alkaline extraction process I mentioned before, and the process in TFA is interesting because it might be better.

Also, nobody would ever make magnesite ore. I referenced magnesium ore prices to estimate the value of the magnesium-as-ore in sea salt, because using finished magnesium prices would be misleading. Magnesium is mostly consumed either as the metal or as the oxide in cements and ceramics.

> : \(Mg(OH)_2 \xrightarrow{\Delta} MgO + H_2O\)T

At least read what you're pasting