Search results

https://xyzt.ai/2020/07/09/where-to-obtain-ais-data-and-easily-analyze-it-without-writing-a-single-line-of-code/ Search for free data, for example using Google Dataset Search. A great source of free (historical) AIS data is NOAA office for coastal management. They publish historical AIS data...

there's probably a specific site that can do that for a certain price, hope that helps :p please realize that it makes answering your question more attractive if we know what you're looking for. I found a site that has data back to 2010 and gives you 200 km² free if you don't mess up the...

Flying tictacs with no visible means of propulsion? Look no further: Source: https://imgur.com/gallery/WolIrF0 https://www.thingiverse.com/tag:tictac_gun they're not UFOs, they're armamints

Escape, or Oxford!

restroom sign

use this to tag the content you're quoting

from the "probably not bunk" department: The Army in September awarded Wayne State University in Michigan a $750,000 grant to study the effects of radio frequency waves on ferrets, which have brains similar to humans, according to information on the grant posted on USASpending.gov. The aim is to...

I disagree. Sorting information from misinformation in war is difficult when it's either breaking news, or when different actors feed contradicting propaganda to the media. However, while opinions on the Baltic Pipeline have been contradictory, the credible evidence hasn't been. We've had some...

sure, but maybe a UK resident could politely ask BAE about it? if the job was classified, it might not lead anywhere, but if it wasn't their jets, their in-house archivist/historian might be able to deny it.

the US is emphatically saying it wasn't the Russians; they may be many things, but not a "pro-Ukrainian group". Given that some of the posters in the early part of the thread seemed convinced it was the Russians, that is a notable result. now hypothetically, if Biden had put up a secret task...

or a piece of cloth or plastic tape knotted around the top wire

spherical perspective produces distortion, that is not in evidence in the screenshots (straight lines are straight)

it wasn't r=170/2=85 85/5 is the aspect you get when hovering 5 km above a 170 km diameter circle a 6000 km diameter planet has a non-refracted angular size of 173.33⁰ at 5090m altitude, according to curve calculator (horizon dip 3.335⁰)

but I think it's not correct from the OP: from https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ : if we don't care about the atmosphere, horizon dip of 2.29⁰ on both sides should make the angular size of the planet 180⁰-2×2.29⁰=2×87.71⁰=175.42⁰. The simulation's 173⁰20' is too small?

looks to me like the angular size of the object, it varies with the distance to the observer as expected, and is useful to know when comparing the apparent size of the sun with the apparent size of the moon etc.

"alleged to have been taken near the A9 road at Clavine" is the official wording the Scottish Daily Record writing "hovered above the A9" is taking a little bit of liberty with that

You can compare: Source: https://youtu.be/JkrIm0ZUyJY With a real camera, we'd have to consider thr possibility of barrel distortion, but your sea level screenshot has a perfectly straight horizon, so that's fine. The simulator might be cutting off (clipping) at certain distance, or be not...

There isn’t a register of copyright works in the UK. And even in the US, it's only necessary to register if you want to be able to sue for statutory damages.

that URL is short for https://psyarxiv.com/9csgu/ . the way that was worded you'd think that Jeffers, 1996, and Ibison & Jeffers, 1998, confirm the result, but they don't (same source):