Readit NewsIt is very common in some other countries.
Including Lemon Law claims.
In my state, you must start with arbitration but you have zero obligation to accept that decision and can sue regardless of outcome.
Replication is difficult, and particularly difficult for novel processes where the important variables are not well understood. It could be that the methods were reported as accurately as possible but still leave out critical detail(s).
One of the primary reasons it is a model is due to transient expression in the leaves via TMV. You can quickly assay many constructs on the same plant with a simple overnight experiment.
There are heirloom sweet corn varieties, but they have to be cooked in minutes/hours from harvesting to remain sweet.
As far as the starchy corn, you won't get a lot of flavor difference.
I'm honestly not sure if that holds up properly, like from a true physics point of view. But it kind of makes sense from intuition. It would seem you'd get quite a fast moving turbine blade with this configuration.
I have little doubt that it can produce impressive figures in very specific conditions - many designs do - but I doubt they see vastly improved real-world performance.
At first sight, given the quantity of material used in the device for the foils and central body, relative to the small turbine size, it's hard to intuitively picture how or why it can be more efficient than a regular wind turbine built using the same amount of material which could, therefore, have much larger blades.
Edit: in fact the inventor of the device, Carsten Hein Westergaard, previously published results from a prototype https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/2265/4/... in which he claims the prototype achieved an efficiency of 42% of Betz limit, which is inferior to standard utility-scale turbines (Wikipedia claims 75-85% but I haven't checked sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law#Betz's_law_and_co... ) so that seems to confirm my intuition.
That isn't surprising at all; wind generation scales very very well with larger size. If it actually achieved 42% at that size, it would still be a major innovation.
But that's also a strong claim that requires very strong evidence. The reasons for inefficiency at smaller scales are fundamental: higher drag to lift. Essentially what they're doing is using the existing building as part of the device to direct wind. This is not a new idea, and in favorable conditions you can get some impressive numbers. But in real life..
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/storage/small-wind-turb...
Most miners stuck it out to the bitter end. Hashrate was only down around 20% from the peak at the switch to PoS. Then it takes a few days to take apart the rigs and get them ready for listing. And that's only for the ones that aren't trying to mine something else, or simply are in denial.
But the main counterpoint to the GPU supply increase is the pent up demand from two years of usurious GPU pricing. A lot of people are ready to finally upgrade as soon as prices are reasonable.
Expect the market to soften - and it is, 3060ti prices are down like $40 over a couple days on eBay - but I also wouldn't expect bargain prices.
This involves under-clocking and under-volting the cards, while also ensuring they're cooled well.
I think an argument could be made that mined-on cards are more well cared for than those owned by your average gamer.
There's not some 'destroy the ASIC' instruction. Work is work.
Mined on cards undergo fewer duty cycles, I wonder how the calculus works out between one long mild duty cycle compared to many more that are also more extreme.
The 3090 is notoriously bad for mining because it has memory chips on both sides of the board, leading to more heating in one spot and poor cooling for the 'back side' chip. Other cards tolerate it much better, but it can be an issue.
So while overall mining cards should be good, there are some specific issues to watch out for. A failed memory chip is not an easy fix, requiring a reball/replacement of that chip.
I thought it was because transactions take minutes instead of seconds.
In practice, seconds after a transaction has been signed and broadcast, it is already very unlikely to double-spend. Miner incentives are such that the first-seen transaction is the most likely to be used. A delay of a couple seconds is sufficient to account for network-propagation lag.
You wouldn't do this for high-value transactions, but there's some threshold where real-world risk is lower than the convenience of a fast transaction, and that threshold is reasonably high.