Also, can someone please explain how the fuck we wirelessly transmit electricity

It’s not electricity per se which is transmitted, i.e., electrons which pass through some material (like in cables, or through air when a lightning strikes and the air becomes a plasma through the electric ionization process).

It is radio waves. Electromagnetic waves of a specific spectrum. Like light, WiFi, TV signals (via antenna), Lasers, etc…
It is a form of energy transmission.

There is a whole field about wireless power transfer. One of them some use everyday: wireless inductive chargers for some smartphones or electric toothbrushes. Those rely on the Lorentz force: if you create a varying magnetic field on the one side and have a coil on the other, you can transfer energy. Read up on Lorentz forces and magnetic induction if you want to learn more. Faraday’s law of induction would be another good read.

Regarding the spacey stuff, that’s trickier. Applying Lorentz principles here on such a scale would be extremely inefficient and probably dangerous as you would need to create an enormous magnetic field. So using focused beams of radio waves has much less losses. Depending on the type of radiation, or wavelength to be more precise, microwaves or even lasers are used for the transmission, whereas microwaves are preferred due to less atmospheric scatterings. They are not allowed be too strong as that would pose several hazards. Instead it has signal strenghts which are safe. To maximize throughput multiple beams could be used.
Important: this is now electromagnetic stuff, not purely magnetic stuff as with the inductive chargers.

So how does this work from source to receiver?

• Source: Sun, emits a shitload of light, other radiation and therby energy.
• Sunwaves hit photovoltaic panels on the satellite.
• Panels generate direct currents by this.
• Direct current gets converted into alternating current (we need this to create electromagnetic beams)
• AC gets formed into beams (electromagnetic waves such as microwaves) and emitted at a specific location on earth.
• On earth some form of antenna receives these beams. Due to the way these antennas work, an electric alternating current is generated. (See dipole antenna for a simple example.)
• This AC needs to go through some transformations to meet some electric specifications to be directly feeded into the elctric grid.
• Alternatively can be transformed into DC again and directly be used, stored in batteries or, depending on the grid, be feeded into that.

Done.

Question, if electricity can be transmitted as a radio signal, why could we generate power here on earth in areas where renewables are super abundant (turbines in the ocean, giant waterfalls, deserts for solar, et cetera) and transmit that around the earth to areas where it’s needed? Why does it have to be in space for this to work?

In theory, we absolutely could do that. This has some practical limitations though which makes it more complicated and less efficient.

Transferring energy on a more “horziontal” way on earth would need to overcome a plethora of obstacles like buildings or mountains. Furthermore such long range transmissions would suffer from a lot more atmospheric scattering, be sensitive to moisture and weather conditions etc. Also, we would need to have large antennas and tightly focused beams which is a big technical challenge and would further loose efficiency, especially over long dictances.
We would also need to guarantee much more “safe corridors” to efficiently transmit without causing harm. And over long distances within the atmosphere the beams must be much stronger to effectively carry enough energy, as much is lost due to scattering, absorption etc… From space a lot of these difficulties don’t exist or don’t have such a large impact. On very short distances should be less of a problem.

I can imagine, however, transferring energy into space to a satellite, which then forwards it to another receiver at a very different place on earth. Such relay satellite concepts are also not new as I’ve seen. They’ve just not been made yet. But that’s surely just a question of time. They face further challenges, since at each intermediate power station you have energy losses, but they could provide much more flexibility. I don’t see this as an issue which can’t be overcome.

Sry if this answer isn’t really polished. I tried to convey the most important aspects and am too tired for anything more. Hope this helps.

Stupid people are easier to control.

because some bureaucratic board has been bullied into being quiet about it

That’s a bold thing to claim.

They are not quiet about this.

And yes, until there is sufficient proof for the genocide allegations and/or the ICJ rules it as such, I can’t confidently say for myself that it’s genocide.

There is a tremendous amount of work invested in this case by people much more qualified than you or me.

Still, from my side this is in no way a justification for the cruel deaths of so many innocents. Civilian casualties are in no way tolerable for me.

That’s indeed unbelievably cruel.

This does not constitute a genocide though.

Humans are not made to kill other humans. And those who fight the wars of the mighty, are those who are among the ones who suffer the most.

War is really stupid. And it’s astonishing how we continue to be such a stupid species. Given how far we’ve come, one would think that we’ve finally realized how much humanity could achieve if we were working together instead of killing each other.

By the way:

It’s obvious that what Israel is doing is very much a genocide

The international court of justice has not ruled on this yet, but continues to observe and investigate whether such genocide allegations could apply.

However, I am not a fan of anyone who practises or participates in wars and so easily tolerates the deaths of innocents.

The artist needs to use the brain and translate a lot, and I mean an awful lot, of the information seen in the model (3d space) into 2d.

Close one eye or put an eyepatch on. I’d expect this makes 3D -> 2D transformations easier after a while.

Interesting idea. I am eager to see whether this can be further confirmed or not.

When deputies first arrived at the scene, they realized the restaurant’s doors were locked, despite employees still being inside. The employees unlocked the doors for the deputies and explained that many upset customers would act out violently or even resort to talking, so they were just trying to be safe, according to the video.

Oh no, the customers might resort to talking! Quick! Lock the doors!

For the non-roboticists: SLAM = Simultaneous Localization And Mapping.

In robot navigation problems we often face the problem to get a grasp of the environment and the robot’s position in it. It’s easier if there’s already a map provided and some sort of external observer who knows where the robot is relative to the map.

Since people don’t usually go into your home to map it out and install some sensors in order to locate the robot, SLAM is the way to go. While moving through an environment, a map of the environment is created and by utilzing some fancy techniques based on sensor data like from cameras, mic+loudspeaker, LIDAR or whatever, it is possible to also infer the robot’s position.

When no one was looking.

It’s possible to change the language of the article as I’ve seen. Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read!

I’m glad the girl has not been severly injured. Of course, such things should not happen. The parents must have been extremely worried about their child, let alone how terrified the child was. I hope it won’t stay traumatised from that.

Yesterday, I’ve also read on another occasion about the other child being rammed by a wolf. I think it’s possible to educate people in a manner such they can deal with their children and pets responsibly in areas where wolf populations exist. Wolves don’t attack humans without reason. According to the article you’ve linked, a behavioural biologist states that the wolf bit her lightly as a warning to stay away. Of course a 5 year old child doesn’t understand this. But it should be possible in this case to implement precautions for the supervisors. Maybe fence off the school ground, get educated how to handle wolf contacts, install auditive deterrents on a frequency only wolves can hear and so on. This can help to improve a peaceful co-existence between humans and wolves.

It’s not surprising that incidents like these can tilt the public opinion against wolves. Which is why it’s even more important to highlight other non-lethal alternatives as solutions.

If it gets out of hand and there is no better way, sure. I guess there’s a lot of checkboxes to be checked before this is the only viable alternative.

I understand that. Thanks for this insight! This again underlines the importance to improve the bureaucratic process of getting compensation and other forms of aids in order to protect the herds.

But surely killing wolves is not the way to go here instead.

I see. Thank you.

Do you feel like that’s the most significant reason for why popularity about the idea of returning wolf populations are decreasing in the netherlands?

From my point of view (Germany) it feels like it’s mostly livestock farmers who are complaining and propagating populistic and scientifically incorrect nonsense about wolves.

Such events only highlight the importance of what scientists and wildlife / environmental protection organisations are demanding and what I’ve summarized before.

Wolves, in general, don’t approach humans and don’t attack them as long as not provoked. Such behaviour as what has happened in the netherlands is rather unusual. However, in principle learning how to coexist, involving how to responsibly manage pets and children, and how to handle areas where larger wolve populations reside, is better than to kill them in terms of benefits for the ecosystem as well as wildlife protection.

And cars. Since on european roads, more than 20.000 people got killed. (Source)

Let’s not forget that livestock farmers can get financial compensation in case their animals really got killed by wolves.

So what’s the fucking problem?

And if a farm animal was killed by a wolf, the farmer can get financial compensation for the animal. So what’s the problem really?

Besides, farm animals get killed by humans en masse. The “animal produce” industry is one of the major contributors to climate change, constantly worsening the life of everyone, leading to an ongoing decline in wildlife and killing thousands of humans, especially during heat waves. But if rarely some wolves kill a farm animal, it’s suddenly a gigantic problem.

The irony in this…

Source please.

Did you sue them?