It shouldn't be too hard for an interested private citizen of means to set up a grid og drones that automatically land and recharge and constantly record everything, passing it to a computer system that looks for these enormous objects.
I'm sure if it was real and if we wanted to we could obtain decisive visual proof in a way where the public was convinced that was not fraudulent.
Like why should we be spending millions of dollars on seti when the corresponding search for these kind of things on earth should be a lot cheaper and easier.
Is it possible this thing is like a cigar with a propeller rotates around the cigar so that you don't actually see there being a propeller because it's rotating? And somehow computer control maintains level flight, or maybe it's multiple propellers around the axis of the cigar.
Alternate theory: Boeing wheels one of these things out to buzz commercial aircraft and airports every time they have some sort of mishap as a PR diversion.
the interesting history of these sorts of frameworks is that Google actually created a framework that did this and stopped development on it. the code is still on GitHub. And there's a bunch of other frameworks that use a variety of different languages not just rust as the application language that also have this idea of not bundling chromium but instead using the system webview for rendering HTML and JavaScript.
You can find a bunch of different approaches in lists like "alternatives to electron." There's some on GitHub.
I took a slightly different approach where instead of using the system web view which I thought you know is going to be inconsistent across systems and it's not going to support the latest HTML JavaScript and security features I used the assumption that the user already has chrome installed which works in a high number of cases or can download and install it if that's not the case. predictably I suppose some people express to satisfaction that it was not using Firefox. using Firefox becomes more possible and more likely I suppose as firefox's support for the dev tools protocol achieves parity with chrome support for that.
To save other people some time, the OP's link to the CIA vault is only to an Erich von Daniken-type crackpot history book that somehow ended up in the CIA archives, not to serious government-commissioned science.
Your prejudicial dismissal hardly saves people time, what if there's something there for them? Then you cost time. It's not for you to judge for others. Your inability to extract utility from this is more about you than about the work itself. If you're open minded you wouldn't impose you biases on others and pretend it's truth. No need be scared of other people making up their own minds and thinking for themselves hm. Running from that is the true crackpot.
I also wasted my time having a look. GP's description "Erich von Daniken-type crackpot history" seems accurate enough to me. Also not sure how on earth it's relevant to this thread in any way. I've heard that "open minded" talk before, from New Age people who believe every crazy thing they read.
You say "It's not for you to judge for others" yet the comment I'm replying to does little else.
I think Scully was too generous...A good dismissal that works in conversation but not in text. So here's a more fitting reply: It seems you're just trying to be mean because you're sore other people are "allowed" to think things you disagree with. To you, they're all crazy. And any coherent dissent to your delusion of monopoly on the truth could only be hypocritical. Likewise the only meaning of invoking "open minded." For a guy who has a whole section on his website dedicated to being open-minded you sure crafted a solid, self-contained mental cage for yourself. So I guess my initial comment applies to you too: being scared of other people thinking for themselves and reaching their own conclusions and running from that is the true crackpot. Your opinions shouldn't require the comfort of consensus, instead you should be comfortable reaching them yourself, then you won't need to try to coerce other people into agreeing with you.
I get if you were confused and misinterpreted what I said as judging for others. The distinction is I'm not telling people how they should take it, I'm saying make up your own mind, and don't discourage others from doing the same, nor try to shame them for reaching conclusion different to you. If it still doesn't make sense let me be even more clear. If either of you had just said oh I think it's s** blah blah blah blah this is my opinion, I won't care but when you try to pretend that anyone reaching a different conclusion must be crazy or wrong, and should not read it and not think for themselves, then I push back against that.
I guess you didn't read enough of it to see the obvious connection with this thread. This thread is about a magnetic pole reversal on the Earth and that story is about the effects of a magnetic pole reversal on Earth.
You're clearly sharp but I think it's a mind that's wasted when you limit the scope of your own inquiry by prejudicing yourself and holding contempt above inquiry. Whatever conclusion you reach about this work that can be the only conclusion about your choice here for how you try to pretend that anyone who disagrees with your holy truth must be wrong or crazy.
I feel sad for you to have to hear all this but I didn't push first. I'm just pushing back against what you said... so maybe next time before you open your mouth with something trying to be mean telling other people what to do you'll think a little more first. And that would be better for you and your karma I think. You're free to disagree (with being cool that other people think for themselves) of course, just remember all your choices have consequences.
There’s a plausible-if-untested mechanism - placing a magnetic shield at the L1 lagrange point. This is far enough from earth that the magnetic field wouldn’t need to be exotically powerful to deflect a substantial fraction of the solar wind.
Eh, the game goes both ways tho. Factories love to feign innocence over defects and dispute penalties and commonly drop QC themselves and then baulk at redoing. Everybody is under pressure and there's angels and demons on both sides.
I'm sure if it was real and if we wanted to we could obtain decisive visual proof in a way where the public was convinced that was not fraudulent.
Like why should we be spending millions of dollars on seti when the corresponding search for these kind of things on earth should be a lot cheaper and easier.