The conclusion is just a rant, it doesn't pick up on the any of the points.
I personally think in the current form, the paper is very weak and should be reworked.
Especially the methodology is very convoluted.
The method should be clearer, significant increases should be shown from the data first.
Next a model should be given, then the significant increases can be explained as only coming from the rally.
Trajectory is calculated from 10 weeks before the event.
Model isn't given only as increment of cases.
I would expect a fit to some exponential function.
If I would do this with an exponential curve, at a later time the increment would just be bigger.
Increase after rally should be even higher than previous estimate anyway.
It would also help to give the data used in the paper in some simple graphs.
This is only my opinion after a brief skim, I could have missed some stuff.
The hardest thing I think is to be just human. If you can casually ask the interviewer how he is been, make some small talk about some random stuff and get them to talk about something else, you are on the road to success.
The more they talk about something unrelated the better.
I once got a job from an interview, that completely derailed. We had rescheduled a few times, cause somebody messed it up. It all worked out after I had a call with the secretary of the big chief.
20 minutes in, I wasn't asked a single serious question but listen to them talk about scheduling how busy everyone was.
Then the big chief had to leave and was again very apologetic about it.
I worked there for 6 month before going back to university and finishing my master. Was really nice, never saw anyone from the interview again, though.
Got introduced to the team as a friend of the big chief and everyone was very nice to me.
I don't advocate for this, I am in favour of pirating evrything and think copyrights and patents should be abolished... But
One could push even further, license everything with a full description. To extort money from the new creators one needs a reference. This reference should be an open storage for everyone to see if they are infringing
The impact of co2 is a smokescreen.
Destroying grounds and mining for minerals for electric batteries can impact the world much more then a million kilometers driven with a gas gozzling super truck.
Co2 of electric energy and heat production overshadows cars by an insane amount.
Considering micro particles from the tires, a diverse range of oils, wiper fluids, particles from the brakes and recycling of all control boards, plastics and foams, they are more concerning than co2 output. At least to me.
Causing an accident and having your car burning out would ruin all previous considerations, no matter what type of car.
Having a car that breaks down often, that is technological to involved for proper repair, like hybrids and evs, will wreck all previous considerations. You will plug out components and put new in, effectively producing involved trash and buying your car again over time.
You can of course be lucky, or you can buy the ongoing repair problem.
So basically the cheapest car, considering all costs, including repairs and recycling and governmental taxes, would be the best in the long run. This is hart to predict and everyone has that problem, when deciding on a car to buy.
Taking any old giant diesel Mercedes limousine, that is already run for 30 years, for a 1000$ upgrading it to lpg or ethanol and using it for another 30 years, could be argued to be far more environmental friendly than any new electric car or hybrid.
If direct co2 output is your only metric, it will be the cheapest electric car you can find.
Just don't crash it or drive it in way that causes lots of repairs.
That is really tough. I don't have an answer, but you might enjoy these loose thoughts.
In the annals of technocracy, people can't stand politics anymore and so they send their toasters and refrigerators to do all that.
These appliances can not be bought and become capable politicians. Machines pay taxes and the hirachy of ownership, human owns machine, is still clear but the dominance hirachy becomes more and more unclear.
Here the toaster can become the president, but he is still send away from his human who could be on the lower end of society. Of course every human is on welfare paid by the machines and everyone is happy in the technocratic society, until the human machine integration takes of and existenz becomes an inconceivable horror.
So the owner of the machine has to be responsible of the machine or the technocracy goes rogue and enslaves humanity. Then owning or instructing the enslaver device can be made illegal. Even if your toaster decides to enslave humanity, you will have to answer for it, even if you don't care or never bothered with it. You willingly gave it your political powers and it operates in your absence on your behalf. Not even death can eliviate you from this responsibility and with machine integration death isn't even an option anymore.
But we missed our chance of Technocracy and powered unhinged through all industrial revolutions.
Machines don't have to pay taxes for their labor, but they have become employers already.
We lost the ability to pin this on the owner. All liability is transfered to the user and nobody owns the company or the machine anymore.
The user agrees to the conditions and takes over all liability.
So by agreeing to use the enslaver you will enslave yourself. If this is forbidden by law, you are breaking that particular law.
It will be illegal the moment you loose ownership of it. Otherwise you are essentially a slave to the new owner.
It can not endanger you and others and you always have to retain the ability to stop it and control it.
Therefore it will be fine as long as all punishment is self inflicted and you always have the ability to just ignore it or turn it off.
Based on microwave technology...
Sorry that doesn't work well
Distance is a huge problem, look up Friis law of transmission. Most of the energy will not arrive where intended.
Next problem is the heat transfer, which will just boil organic matter that stays in the beam.
One shall not operate a microwave with an open door.
Then there is conversion loss from GHz to DC.
Sorry that was already tried and a simple cable is far better and less dangerous
I think only left side justified, the strange use of empty pages in the beginning and the overuse of indents and pauses make it most unappealing to me.
Cutting the pages in two columns to give some explanation to figures is odd enough, but is then broken on some pages due to space issues (e.g. page 28).
To me it feels this all was done without care. The content was dropped into some weird style.
Especially the methodology is very convoluted. The method should be clearer, significant increases should be shown from the data first. Next a model should be given, then the significant increases can be explained as only coming from the rally.
Trajectory is calculated from 10 weeks before the event. Model isn't given only as increment of cases. I would expect a fit to some exponential function.
If I would do this with an exponential curve, at a later time the increment would just be bigger. Increase after rally should be even higher than previous estimate anyway.
It would also help to give the data used in the paper in some simple graphs.
This is only my opinion after a brief skim, I could have missed some stuff.