It's not really whether it makes scientific sense or not, it's just that it's so very highly improbable (really, really improbable) that other explanations make more sense: the video's a fake, it's mass hysteria, or even that we're living in a simulation.
The use of a space as a thousands separator has been around since the 1940s as recommended by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and it was what we used when I was a kid at school in the UK. They specified it should be a thin (half) space.
How can you tell from analysis of the physical circuit what assumptions the designer made about the flow of current? Surely the components (electrolytic capacitors, diodes, transistors, etc) are the same and can only work in one direction. Is it that the ground plane is connected to the positive terminal of the power supply?
They have different magnetic susceptibilities. Gold is diamagnetic (repelled by magnetism); tungsten is paramagnetic (attracted). A strong magnetic field (neodymium magnets) and sensitive scales can tell them apart. I built a small rig a few years ago with parts from Aliexpress that worked for coins and for bars it's just scaling it up.
You should take D3 with vitamin K2 (talk with your doctor first if you're on blood-thinning medications) to avoid calcium being dumped into soft tissues (K2 ensures it preferentially goes into bones).
It's a good idea to get your vitamin D status tested yearly and aim to be at least 50 ng/ml (120 nmol/l), but not more than 80 ng/ml (200 nmol/l).
As an example for dosages: I take about 7000 IU of vitamin D3 and 180 mcg of vitamin K2 daily. My levels test at about 180 nmol/l and my blood calcium is normal.
For the same field of view, a smaller sensor requires a decrease in the focal length; this leads to a greater depth of field. Moving to a medium-format camera will give less depth of field (and a large-format camera even less). Different sensor sizes using the same focal length will give the same depth of field, but the field of view will vary.
> Not sure the source but there is a rule in fiction that everything has a purpose, as opposed to reality. If the camera stops in an axe, you can be sure someone is going to wield it later.
On my screen, it's taking about 4s to scroll one light minute (15 times light speed). So if the map extended all the way to Proxima Centauri, it would take over 3 months of continuous scrolling to get there.
RAID 10 is more efficient (if that equates to performant) than RAID 6, but not more durable. In fact it's less.
As an example, a 4-disk array (which has the same capacity in both RAID 6 and RAID 10) has 4 2-disk failure modes. RAID 6 can handle all of these failure modes without losing data, whereas RAID 10 can only handle 2 of them.