more updates...kind of?
Jun. 23rd, 2023 09:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. I got curious about deep water ocean exploration, gee I wonder why? Although I've always been curious about it. I love water. But I'd make a horrible ocean explorer - motion sickness issues alone would deter me.
That and height - I'm six foot. Submarines and ocean vessels are not designed for tall people.
On Twitter someone stated : "what if it was your family?"
To which most of us responded, "never happening."
Anyhow, found this article on it:
The Conversation - Titan Submersible Disaster Underscores Dangers of Deep See Exploration - an Engineer Explains why Most Ocean Science is Conducted with Crewless Submarines
I think we all know why. We kind of knew why before the submersible disaster.
Rescuers spotted debris from the tourist submarine Titan on the ocean floor near the wreck of the Titanic on June 22, 2023, indicating that the vessel suffered a catastrophic failure and the five people aboard were killed.
Bringing people to the bottom of the deep ocean is inherently dangerous. At the same time, climate change means collecting data from the world’s oceans is more vital than ever. Purdue University mechanical engineer Nina Mahmoudian explains how researchers reduce the risks and costs associated with deep-sea exploration: Send down subs, but keep people on the surface.
Why is most underwater research conducted with remotely operated and autonomous underwater vehicles?
When we talk about water studies, we’re talking about vast areas. And covering vast areas requires tools that can work for extended periods of time, sometimes months. Having people aboard underwater vehicles, especially for such long periods of time, is expensive and dangerous.
One of the tools researchers use is remotely operated vehicles, or ROVs. Basically, there is a cable between the vehicle and operator that allows the operator to command and move the vehicle, and the vehicle can relay data in real time. ROV technology has progressed a lot to be able to reach deep ocean – up to a depth of 6,000 meters (19,685 feet). It’s also better able to provide the mobility necessary for observing the sea bed and gathering data.
Autonomous underwater vehicles provide another opportunity for underwater exploration. They are usually not tethered to a ship. They are typically programmed ahead of time to do a specific mission. And while they are underwater they usually don’t have constant communication. At some interval, they surface, relay the whole amount of data that they have gathered, change the battery or recharge and receive renewed instructions before again submerging and continuing their mission.
* What can remotely operated and autonomous underwater vehicles do that crewed submersibles can’t, and vice versa?
Crewed submersibles will be exciting for the public and those involved and helpful for the increased capabilities humans bring in operating instruments and making decisions, similar to crewed space exploration. However, it will be much more expensive compared with uncrewed explorations because of the required size of the platforms and the need for life-support systems and safety systems. Crewed submersibles today cost tens of thousands of dollars a day to operate.
Use of unmanned systems will provide better opportunities for exploration at less cost and risk in operating over vast areas and in inhospitable locations. Using remotely operated and autonomous underwater vehicles gives operators the opportunity to perform tasks that are dangerous for humans, like observing under ice and detecting underwater mines.
I find the engineering interesting. You'd think I'd be tired of that - after dealing with engineering issues all week long - but you'd be wrong.
2. Now that I've figured out that I'm dealing with a narcissist at work, I've realized I have to change my approach and reactions to the person.
* Never question their authority
* Vet things through them and keep them in the loop
* Let them think they are superior (I honestly don't care)
* Don't argue with them or fight them on anything
I can't change them, but I can change how I relate to them.
3. Someone on Twitter mentioned how much chemistry James Marsters had with Gellar in S4, more than Riley - that they kept them separate most of Season 4. And my response was that they had issues with Marsters -- who had managed to find a way of generating chemistry with everyone, including doors. And had actors begging to be paired with his character. He wanted to stay employed, so cleverly did everything in his power to do so. They had to separate him and Willow - because he had chemistry with Willow. They eventually separated him and Riley, because ditto. Same with Xander. Then Dawn. And by chemistry - I do not mean platonic.
I found it amusing at the time, and still do. The writers even state it in various commentaries and afterwards. How they had to separate Marsters' Spike from various characters - because of there was chemistry and they did not want to pursue that or have people shipping it, for that matter.
It is a good example of how an actor can change a character or evolve a character and change a story as a result. Also demonstrative of how collaborative a television series truly is - regardless of what a show-runner may intend. Actors do pull in an audience, and do affect how we perceive the characters based on how they deliver the lines.
4. Burn it Down has synced from tell-all Hollywood story to a discourse on how to handle toxic workplace situations. And combat bullying and toxic abusive narcissists. It's useful - in a way, but not overly so. I don't work in Hollywood, so I may be the wrong audience for it.
5. Marvel Universe Fans? The X-men's White Queen is Marrying Iron Man.
I know, it threw me for a bit too.
I am on the fence about seeing DC's The Flash in movie theaters. My television set has a slight annoying wave, which I'm blatantly ignoring, because I do not want to get a new television set. Although ironically the leaks appear to be over.
It is getting mixed reviews. [The Flash - not my television set.] Which I should have realized after freshman roommate gave it rave reviews. The last movie she adored was Quantiumania. Also she adores Grease 2 and thinks it is better than Grease 1.
* The Falsh - Atrocious, Embarrassing, Worst Superhero Movie of all time - talk about hyperbole. This reviewer holds nothing back.
* The Flash is simulataneously thoughtful and clueless, challenging and pandering
* A nicely irreverent superhero film
Okay maybe not that mixed. I'd heard it was supposed to be amazing before it came out, then well...not so much. Sounds like a convoluted mess? Time travel is always confusing and rarely done well. And both Marvel and DC appear to be confusing their audiences with it's use.
In other Marvel Universe news? They killed off Kamala aka Ms. Marvel in a Spiderman comic - she sacrifices herself for Mary Jane and save the world.
I thought? I'd rather kill off Spiderman or Mary Jane. She's the last of the Inhuman characters - they've offed. Marvel tried to get rid of the X-men and use the Inhumans instead, this didn't work, got a lot of backlash, and was eventually dropped. Now the X-men have been rebooted and the Inhumans dropped.
Into the Spiderverse looks a wee bit too busy for me to see in theaters. It like the Flash, appears to be a convoluted mess.
Co-worker did not give it rave reviews.
That and height - I'm six foot. Submarines and ocean vessels are not designed for tall people.
On Twitter someone stated : "what if it was your family?"
To which most of us responded, "never happening."
Anyhow, found this article on it:
The Conversation - Titan Submersible Disaster Underscores Dangers of Deep See Exploration - an Engineer Explains why Most Ocean Science is Conducted with Crewless Submarines
I think we all know why. We kind of knew why before the submersible disaster.
Rescuers spotted debris from the tourist submarine Titan on the ocean floor near the wreck of the Titanic on June 22, 2023, indicating that the vessel suffered a catastrophic failure and the five people aboard were killed.
Bringing people to the bottom of the deep ocean is inherently dangerous. At the same time, climate change means collecting data from the world’s oceans is more vital than ever. Purdue University mechanical engineer Nina Mahmoudian explains how researchers reduce the risks and costs associated with deep-sea exploration: Send down subs, but keep people on the surface.
Why is most underwater research conducted with remotely operated and autonomous underwater vehicles?
When we talk about water studies, we’re talking about vast areas. And covering vast areas requires tools that can work for extended periods of time, sometimes months. Having people aboard underwater vehicles, especially for such long periods of time, is expensive and dangerous.
One of the tools researchers use is remotely operated vehicles, or ROVs. Basically, there is a cable between the vehicle and operator that allows the operator to command and move the vehicle, and the vehicle can relay data in real time. ROV technology has progressed a lot to be able to reach deep ocean – up to a depth of 6,000 meters (19,685 feet). It’s also better able to provide the mobility necessary for observing the sea bed and gathering data.
Autonomous underwater vehicles provide another opportunity for underwater exploration. They are usually not tethered to a ship. They are typically programmed ahead of time to do a specific mission. And while they are underwater they usually don’t have constant communication. At some interval, they surface, relay the whole amount of data that they have gathered, change the battery or recharge and receive renewed instructions before again submerging and continuing their mission.
* What can remotely operated and autonomous underwater vehicles do that crewed submersibles can’t, and vice versa?
Crewed submersibles will be exciting for the public and those involved and helpful for the increased capabilities humans bring in operating instruments and making decisions, similar to crewed space exploration. However, it will be much more expensive compared with uncrewed explorations because of the required size of the platforms and the need for life-support systems and safety systems. Crewed submersibles today cost tens of thousands of dollars a day to operate.
Use of unmanned systems will provide better opportunities for exploration at less cost and risk in operating over vast areas and in inhospitable locations. Using remotely operated and autonomous underwater vehicles gives operators the opportunity to perform tasks that are dangerous for humans, like observing under ice and detecting underwater mines.
I find the engineering interesting. You'd think I'd be tired of that - after dealing with engineering issues all week long - but you'd be wrong.
2. Now that I've figured out that I'm dealing with a narcissist at work, I've realized I have to change my approach and reactions to the person.
* Never question their authority
* Vet things through them and keep them in the loop
* Let them think they are superior (I honestly don't care)
* Don't argue with them or fight them on anything
I can't change them, but I can change how I relate to them.
3. Someone on Twitter mentioned how much chemistry James Marsters had with Gellar in S4, more than Riley - that they kept them separate most of Season 4. And my response was that they had issues with Marsters -- who had managed to find a way of generating chemistry with everyone, including doors. And had actors begging to be paired with his character. He wanted to stay employed, so cleverly did everything in his power to do so. They had to separate him and Willow - because he had chemistry with Willow. They eventually separated him and Riley, because ditto. Same with Xander. Then Dawn. And by chemistry - I do not mean platonic.
I found it amusing at the time, and still do. The writers even state it in various commentaries and afterwards. How they had to separate Marsters' Spike from various characters - because of there was chemistry and they did not want to pursue that or have people shipping it, for that matter.
It is a good example of how an actor can change a character or evolve a character and change a story as a result. Also demonstrative of how collaborative a television series truly is - regardless of what a show-runner may intend. Actors do pull in an audience, and do affect how we perceive the characters based on how they deliver the lines.
4. Burn it Down has synced from tell-all Hollywood story to a discourse on how to handle toxic workplace situations. And combat bullying and toxic abusive narcissists. It's useful - in a way, but not overly so. I don't work in Hollywood, so I may be the wrong audience for it.
5. Marvel Universe Fans? The X-men's White Queen is Marrying Iron Man.
I know, it threw me for a bit too.
I am on the fence about seeing DC's The Flash in movie theaters. My television set has a slight annoying wave, which I'm blatantly ignoring, because I do not want to get a new television set. Although ironically the leaks appear to be over.
It is getting mixed reviews. [The Flash - not my television set.] Which I should have realized after freshman roommate gave it rave reviews. The last movie she adored was Quantiumania. Also she adores Grease 2 and thinks it is better than Grease 1.
* The Falsh - Atrocious, Embarrassing, Worst Superhero Movie of all time - talk about hyperbole. This reviewer holds nothing back.
* The Flash is simulataneously thoughtful and clueless, challenging and pandering
* A nicely irreverent superhero film
Okay maybe not that mixed. I'd heard it was supposed to be amazing before it came out, then well...not so much. Sounds like a convoluted mess? Time travel is always confusing and rarely done well. And both Marvel and DC appear to be confusing their audiences with it's use.
In other Marvel Universe news? They killed off Kamala aka Ms. Marvel in a Spiderman comic - she sacrifices herself for Mary Jane and save the world.
I thought? I'd rather kill off Spiderman or Mary Jane. She's the last of the Inhuman characters - they've offed. Marvel tried to get rid of the X-men and use the Inhumans instead, this didn't work, got a lot of backlash, and was eventually dropped. Now the X-men have been rebooted and the Inhumans dropped.
Into the Spiderverse looks a wee bit too busy for me to see in theaters. It like the Flash, appears to be a convoluted mess.
Co-worker did not give it rave reviews.
no subject
Date: 2023-06-24 05:44 am (UTC)Agreed. There's just such a small margin of error when it comes to this kind of stuff and it just seems like an unnecessary risk. I know you can say that for other activities too, but this is another level.
I'm with you on The Flash. I was excited about it once upon a time but now I can't bring myself to go and I've heard the mixed reviews too. A friend of mine liked it but others have complained about the CGI.
Does anyone stay dead in the comics these days other than Ben Parker? It's probably easier to bring back someone with powers than a human character too.
no subject
Date: 2023-06-24 01:36 pm (UTC)Exactly. It's the ocean. You don't play games with the ocean. We don't know enough about it - and the fact that we still don't after more than 2000 years, says something. It's a desert that can drown you and has creatures inside it that can eat or kill you. It's not the same thing as climbing a mountain top or flying in a plane. Nothing is trying to take the plane down when it gets in the air - while in the ocean - there are things trying to take you down. I think space travel is the only other equivalent.
I'm with you on The Flash. I was excited about it once upon a time but now I can't bring myself to go and I've heard the mixed reviews too. A friend of mine liked it but others have complained about the CGI.
Agreed. It sounds too busy to me. I didn't enjoy the last two super hero films that I saw because they were too busy with way too much CGI. The difficulty with CGI - is less is more. If you over-rely on it, or have too much of it, the audience can see the flaws and tell it is CGI. It's kind of similar to the fake shark in Jaws - the film works because we rarely see the shark. The more you see it - the less believable it is. They wisely showed very little of it.
Both Guardians of the Galaxy and Quantiumania had far too much CGI and I could tell it was fake and it jarred me. The Flash is supposed to have even more.
And the busyness. I'm not sure I can handle the busyness of Spiderman animated sequel - and from what I understand that's the far better film. I've been told its insanely busy. And the reviews suggest that the Flash is far worse in this regard. So, I'm waiting for both to pop up on television. By which point, I may or may not have a new television set. I think the Flash may pop up before The Spiderverse - since it's gotten poor reviews, and is not doing quite as well as they expected. The audience word of mouth is not good.
No one at work has mentioned going to it. And there's a group at work that actually appreciates a good superhero flick. The only person who loved it - that I know of - is the ex-roommate whose taste in movies runs counter to my own. There's a reason we didn't get along as roommates.
Does anyone stay dead in the comics these days other than Ben Parker? It's probably easier to bring back someone with powers than a human character too.
Not really. And Marvel? They've put in a few things that kind of make it possible to bring back everyone? 1) We got the multi-verse, so if a character dies in one verse, you always have the possibility of another version popping up somewhere. So they can basically reboot the characters and storyline constantly without worrying too much about what happened in the past. 2) the X-men have this immortality machine where they can bring back people, they clone the body, and have a backup of the person saved which they download to the new body. I don't know where the soul goes or if the soul is backed up, my guess is the writers don't believe in the soul or think it is the same as the intelligence. (It's very science-fictiony.)
DC? Multi-verse means they can reboot and do much the same thing as Marvel did. I don't think they have the immortality machine concept over there - but I also don't really follow DC that closely.
Comics and Doctor Who have a leg up on Daytime Soap Operas - in that they can reboot themselves more effectively with science fiction and fantasy concepts. I bet the soap opera writers are envious.