Health insurance companies, middlemen, and agents have to give all policyholders a document called the customer information sheet(CIS).Easy to understand CIS will help address common customer queries and understand their policy benefits as well as limitations better.

Health insurance information to be made available in a simple and lucid form from January 1

In the rapidly evolving world of healthcare technology, Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) are emerging as pivotal figures leading health tech innovation. Urban and Smith focused on two primary challenges: the fragmented nature of healthcare in the U.S. and the ...

Chief Medical Officers, The Keystone of Health Tech Innovation

The global non-profit devises ‘maturity models’ to measure and advance healthcare technology on a global scale. Stepping out of the COVID-19 pandemic, the healthcare industry finds itself wrapped in a world of healthcare technology tools and innovations.

HIMSS provides guidance for digital healthcare in Asia-Pacific

Read more about The First-Ever BMW i7 M70 xDrive and the All-New BMW 740d M Sport Launched in India on Devdiscourse

The First-Ever BMW i7 M70 xDrive and the All-New BMW 740d M Sport Launched in India

Coal India Ltd305.25-1.62% M&M1506.10-4.01% Adani Ports SEZ770.350.16% Vedanta 212.25-2.09% Coal India Ltd305.25-1.62% Sanofi India7325.40-1.97% Castrol India135.25-0.98% Chennai Petro521.80-2.36% GE Shipping798.75-2.54% Trending in Markets

Buy L&T Technology Services, target price Rs 5210: Motilal Oswal

Fintel reports that on October 17, 2023, Wolfe Research upgraded their outlook for Fidelity National Information Services (NYSE ... FIS is a leading provider of technology solutions for merchants ...

Wolfe Research Upgrades Fidelity National Information Services (FIS)

L&T Technology Services (LTTS) posted decent growth and margin performance in Q2 but lowered its FY24E growth guidance from >20% CC earlier to 17.5-18.5% CC. While LTTS’ deal wins have improved ...

Reduce Larsen and Toubro Technology Services; target of Rs 4100 HDFC Securities

L&T Technology (LTTS) posted in-line revenue of USD288m in 2QFY24, up 3.2% QoQ CC (incl. SWC). Growth was driven by Transportation and Plant Engineering verticals, with 4.4% and 3.8% QoQ growth ...

Buy Larsen and Toubro Technology Services; target of Rs 5210: Motilal Oswal

Get the most recent info and news about Headlight on HackerNoon, where 10k+ technologists publish stories for 4M+ monthly readers.

The next big thing in data: custom designed portals that aggregate all workforce, economic, & demographic data into one central website.

Headlight

In recent decades, automakers around the world have spent countless billions on autonomous vehicle technology. They're doing so because everyone agrees that self-driving cars will be the next killer app in the industry. Unfortunately, the road to getting there hasn't been as smooth as those automakers have hoped. On the contrary, the short history of autonomous vehicle technology is one filled with countless technological failures and accidents. In San Francisco, CA, a hotbed for autonomous vehicle testing, there have already been dozens of accidents—including at least one that seriously injured a pedestrian. However, fully autonomous vehicles aren't the only type of self-driving technology out there. There are also countless new vehicles on US roads with complex driver-assist systems. These vehicles have the same features as self-driving models, except that they require a driver's hands on the wheel at all times. And those vehicles are causing havoc on the roads. In one 10-month span, in fact, automakers reported 400 accidents involving vehicles with driver-assist systems in use. All of this is to say that the development of self-driving vehicle technology is not without risk. And at this stage, it begs a serious question—are smart autonomous vehicle technologies making us less safe on the road? Here's the answer to that question, based on all available data. The Safety Potential of Autonomous Driving Technology Without a doubt, the various technological elements that make up today's driver-assist systems and tomorrow's fully autonomous vehicles have the potential to save lives. How many lives? To figure that out, consider the following. Each year in the US, there are approximately 1.7 million rear-end vehicle collisions. Those accidents create approximately 1,700 fatalities and 500,000 additional injuries. And yet, a study of vehicles that include forward collision warning (FCW) systems and autonomous emergency braking (AEB) functionality indicates that those two technologies alone could reduce such accidents by a whopping 50%. That means universal adoption of FCW and AEB technology could save at least 850 lives every year. Another study indicated that equipping vehicles with FCW, lane departure warning (LDW), blind spot warning, and curve-adaptive headlights could cut car accident rates by up to one-third. If you consider that there are approximately 43,000 fatal car crashes in the US every year, those technologies alone could prevent 14,190 of those. Assessing the Human Element You'll notice that so far, I've only mentioned driver-assist technologies that don't directly control the operation of a vehicle. And therein lies the problem. It seems that the more self-driving technology you put in a vehicle, the less responsible drivers become. According to a recent survey, drivers are developing some disturbing habits connected to autonomous driving technology. In the survey, a shocking 61% of respondents indicated that advanced driver-assist technologies make them more comfortable looking away from the road while driving. A full 58% of those with vehicles equipped with pedestrian detection admitted that they've stopped looking around for pedestrians. And maybe worst of all, 57% of those with AEB-equipped vehicles report it making them comfortable with looking away from the road while driving. If you examine those results together, a pretty clear picture starts to emerge. It's that any vehicle technology that takes the onus of safety off the driver makes drivers less careful and more distracted. And that tendency is nowhere more pronounced than it is in a specific driver cohort: Tesla vehicle owners. The Electric Elephant in the Room If you go looking for information about self-driving technologies and vehicle safety, it won't take long for you to notice a trend. It's that vehicles from all-electric automaker Tesla seem to get involved in a shocking number of car crashes. And you're not imagining it. According to insurance company data, Tesla owners have the highest accident rate of any type of vehicle. Between 2022 and 2023, Tesla drivers had an accident rate of 23.54 per 1,000 drivers. And if you dig a bit deeper, you'll find that a huge percentage of those crashes happened either completely or in part due to the automaker's Autopilot feature. So far, Tesla's self-driving feature is responsible for 736 crashes and 17 fatalities. And there are some important reasons for that which tie into this discussion. One of them is the fact that Tesla's Autopilot isn't capable of fully autonomous operation. It's just the automaker's name for its particular flavor of driver-assist technologies. Like others in its class, Autopilot requires drivers to keep their hands on the steering wheel at all times. And yet, the company has spent over nine years advertising the Autopilot feature as a Full Self-Driving Capability. And given what we know about driver tendencies surrounding autonomous technologies, likely explains the high accident rate among Tesla drivers. Those drivers, lulled by the promise of illusory self-driving capabilities, seem to take chances they wouldn't take in other vehicles. To wit, most of the accidents involving the Autopilot feature happen as onboard computers record the driver taking their hands off the steering wheel for extended periods. The Takeaway The main takeaway from all of this is simple. It's that self-driving and autonomous vehicle technology can and should make driving much safer. However, until those technologies mature into truly autonomous vehicles, they're having the opposite effect. While features like FCW and AEB do decrease fatality rates in accidents, they may be contributing to driver behavior that causes more accidents. Of course, there's no precise way to tell if that particular tradeoff is worth it, safety-wise. Furthermore, it also seems clear that the more drivers believe that their vehicles can handle the driving for them, the less engaged in the task they get. Therefore, until vehicles can handle all of the driving for their occupants without human intervention, we may see an ever-increasing number of injuries and fatalities connected to driver-assist technologies. That reality puts more pressure than ever before on the automakers working toward full vehicle autonomy to get their current technologies and designs to the finish line. In recent decades, automakers around the world have spent countless billions on autonomous vehicle technology. They're doing so because everyone agrees that self-driving cars will be the next killer app in the industry. Unfortunately, the road to getting there hasn't been as smooth as those automakers have hoped. autonomous vehicle autonomous vehicle On the contrary, the short history of autonomous vehicle technology is one filled with countless technological failures and accidents. In San Francisco, CA, a hotbed for autonomous vehicle testing, there have already been dozens of accidents —including at least one that seriously injured a pedestrian . dozens of accidents dozens of accidents seriously injured a pedestrian seriously injured a pedestrian However, fully autonomous vehicles aren't the only type of self-driving technology out there. There are also countless new vehicles on US roads with complex driver-assist systems. These vehicles have the same features as self-driving models, except that they require a driver's hands on the wheel at all times. And those vehicles are causing havoc on the roads. In one 10-month span, in fact, automakers reported 400 accidents involving vehicles with driver-assist systems in use. reported 400 accidents reported 400 accidents All of this is to say that the development of self-driving vehicle technology is not without risk. And at this stage, it begs a serious question—are smart autonomous vehicle technologies making us less safe on the road? Here's the answer to that question, based on all available data. The Safety Potential of Autonomous Driving Technology Without a doubt, the various technological elements that make up today's driver-assist systems and tomorrow's fully autonomous vehicles have the potential to save lives. How many lives? To figure that out, consider the following. make up today's driver-assist systems make up today's driver-assist systems Each year in the US, there are approximately 1.7 million rear-end vehicle collisions . Those accidents create approximately 1,700 fatalities and 500,000 additional injuries. And yet, a study of vehicles that include forward collision warning (FCW) systems and autonomous emergency braking (AEB) functionality indicates that those two technologies alone could reduce such accidents by a whopping 50% . That means universal adoption of FCW and AEB technology could save at least 850 lives every year. 1.7 million rear-end vehicle collisions 1.7 million rear-end vehicle collisions by a whopping 50% by a whopping 50% Another study indicated that equipping vehicles with FCW, lane departure warning (LDW), blind spot warning, and curve-adaptive headlights could cut car accident rates by up to one-third . If you consider that there are approximately 43,000 fatal car crashes in the US every year, those technologies alone could prevent 14,190 of those. by up to one-third by up to one-third Assessing the Human Element You'll notice that so far, I've only mentioned driver-assist technologies that don't directly control the operation of a vehicle. And therein lies the problem. It seems that the more self-driving technology you put in a vehicle, the less responsible drivers become. According to a recent survey , drivers are developing some disturbing habits connected to autonomous driving technology. a recent survey a recent survey In the survey, a shocking 61% of respondents indicated that advanced driver-assist technologies make them more comfortable looking away from the road while driving. A full 58% of those with vehicles equipped with pedestrian detection admitted that they've stopped looking around for pedestrians. And maybe worst of all, 57% of those with AEB-equipped vehicles report it making them comfortable with looking away from the road while driving. If you examine those results together, a pretty clear picture starts to emerge. It's that any vehicle technology that takes the onus of safety off the driver makes drivers less careful and more distracted. And that tendency is nowhere more pronounced than it is in a specific driver cohort: Tesla vehicle owners. The Electric Elephant in the Room If you go looking for information about self-driving technologies and vehicle safety, it won't take long for you to notice a trend. It's that vehicles from all-electric automaker Tesla seem to get involved in a shocking number of car crashes . And you're not imagining it. According to insurance company data, Tesla owners have the highest accident rate of any type of vehicle. Between 2022 and 2023, Tesla drivers had an accident rate of 23.54 per 1,000 drivers . And if you dig a bit deeper, you'll find that a huge percentage of those crashes happened either completely or in part due to the automaker's Autopilot feature. car crashes car crashes 23.54 per 1,000 drivers 23.54 per 1,000 drivers So far, Tesla's self-driving feature is responsible for 736 crashes and 17 fatalities . And there are some important reasons for that which tie into this discussion. One of them is the fact that Tesla's Autopilot isn't capable of fully autonomous operation. It's just the automaker's name for its particular flavor of driver-assist technologies. Like others in its class, Autopilot requires drivers to keep their hands on the steering wheel at all times. 736 crashes and 17 fatalities 736 crashes and 17 fatalities And yet, the company has spent over nine years advertising the Autopilot feature as a Full Self-Driving Capability . And given what we know about driver tendencies surrounding autonomous technologies, likely explains the high accident rate among Tesla drivers. Those drivers, lulled by the promise of illusory self-driving capabilities, seem to take chances they wouldn't take in other vehicles. To wit, most of the accidents involving the Autopilot feature happen as onboard computers record the driver taking their hands off the steering wheel for extended periods. Full Self-Driving Capability Full Self-Driving Capability The Takeaway The main takeaway from all of this is simple. It's that self-driving and autonomous vehicle technology can and should make driving much safer. However, until those technologies mature into truly autonomous vehicles, they're having the opposite effect. While features like FCW and AEB do decrease fatality rates in accidents, they may be contributing to driver behavior that causes more accidents. Of course, there's no precise way to tell if that particular tradeoff is worth it, safety-wise. Furthermore, it also seems clear that the more drivers believe that their vehicles can handle the driving for them, the less engaged in the task they get. Therefore, until vehicles can handle all of the driving for their occupants without human intervention, we may see an ever-increasing number of injuries and fatalities connected to driver-assist technologies. That reality puts more pressure than ever before on the automakers working toward full vehicle autonomy to get their current technologies and designs to the finish line.

Self-Driving Cars and Personal Injury: Are Smart Features Making Cars Safer or More Dangerous?

স্ব-ড্রাইভিং গাড়ি এবং ব্যক্তিগত আঘাত: স্মার্ট বৈশিষ্ট্যগুলি কি গাড়িগুলিকে নিরাপদ বা আরও বিপজ্জনক করে তোলে?

Selbstfahrende Autos und Personenschäden: Machen intelligente Funktionen Autos sicherer oder gefährlicher?

Los vehículos autónomos y las lesiones personales: ¿las funciones inteligentes hacen que los coches sean más seguros o más peligrosos?

Voitures autonomes et blessures corporelles : les fonctionnalités intelligentes rendent-elles les voitures plus sûres ou plus dangereuses ?

स्वचालित कारें और व्यक्तिगत चोट: क्या स्मार्ट फीचर्स कारों को सुरक्षित बना रहे हैं या अधिक खतरनाक?

自動運転車と人身傷害: スマート機能は車をより安全にするのか、それともより危険にするのか?

자율주행차와 개인 상해: 스마트 기능이 자동차를 더 안전하게 만드는가, 아니면 더 위험한가?

Carros autônomos e ferimentos pessoais: os recursos inteligentes estão tornando os carros mais seguros ou mais perigosos?

Беспилотные автомобили и травматизм: делают ли интеллектуальные функции автомобили безопаснее или опаснее?

Sürücüsüz Arabalar ve Kişisel Yaralanma: Akıllı Özellikler Arabaları Daha Güvenli mi, yoksa Daha Tehlikeli mi Hale Getiriyor?

Ô tô tự lái và thương tích cá nhân: Các tính năng thông minh giúp ô tô an toàn hơn hay nguy hiểm hơn?

自动驾驶汽车与人身伤害：智能功能是否使汽车更安全还是更危险？

Feedback is a crucial part of growth. If you don’t know how you’re doing, it’s impossible to take corrective actions and improve. Many leaders fail at this. They either do not explicitly seek feedback or the way they ask for it only boosts their ego by getting feel-good praise about what they’re doing well without surfacing the actual areas where they’re falling short. There are lurking gaps in how leaders view their actions and how others perceive them leading to inadvertent blind spots. Without getting the criticism they need, they keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Not taking the time to reconcile reality perpetuates disconnect and dissonance. As a leader, making your employees comfortable to criticize you isn’t easy. Don’t expect them to walk over to you and give you the feedback unless you take the first few steps in seeking it. Done right, feedback can be a great tool to get rid of behaviors that are damaging to yourself and the success of your organization and its people. The real leverage is creating pull. Creating pull is about mastering the skills required to drive our own learning; it’s about how to recognize and manage our resistance, how to engage in feedback conversations with confidence and curiosity, and even when the feedback seems wrong, how to find insight that might help us grow. — Douglas Stone To get clear and actionable feedback, follow these practices: Setup expectations and clarify intent The biggest mistake all leaders make when getting feedback is this: they do not openly acknowledge their imperfections and flaws. Many employees have this false image of a leader—someone who does all the right things, says all the right things and has all the answers. This makes it hard for them to digest that leaders aren’t perfect—they also have room for improvement just like others. People aren’t able to muster up the courage to speak the truth because of this cognitive dissonance—their mind portrays the perfect image of the leader which conflicts with their experience. To enable your people to speak freely, first break this misconception. To do this: Whenever you make a mistake, acknowledge it openly. When you don’t know something, don’t pretend. Show curiosity to understand. Don’t hold feedback. Give it as you see it. Showing vulnerability resets their expectations. Now when you ask for feedback, they won’t be taken aback. They won’t be surprised and shocked at the same time that you as a leader need their feedback. But sometimes, setting expectations isn't enough. They need to hear you say it. Stating your intent before asking for feedback is a powerful way to encourage them to say things as you need to hear them. Even with the best intentions at heart, I don’t always make the right decisions, do the right thing or act in a way that’s in the best interest of my organization and its people. I understand and acknowledge it. But I also know that with the right feedback, I can do better. I am hoping you’ll help me on this journey with transparency and honesty. Start like this: Ask open ended questions You got started on the right note, but that does not guarantee you’ll get the feedback you need. How you frame the question also determines what response you get. Most people will avoid giving feedback. It’s uncomfortable to criticize others and it’s natural to avoid discomfort as much as possible. When you ask a question that elicits a yes or no response—“Do you have any feedback for me?”—the most common response is “No, You’re doing great.” It’s also hard to answer such questions. They may not know where to start or what to say. Instead of keeping quiet, it feels safer to say no. To get actionable feedback, ask a question that cannot be answered with a yes or no response—a specific question that makes them think in a certain direction without feeling lost. For example: What one thing can I do to communicate better? What one thing should I stop doing in meetings to make them more effective? What one thing can I do to be more supportive? What one thing can I do to encourage more ideas from the team? What one thing should I stop doing that impacts your productivity? Open-ended questions like these are a great way to prompt them to think. They get a chance to express their thoughts and concerns, which makes them feel valued and supported. You get an opportunity to take corrective action. A true win-win. To seek truth requires one to ask the right questions. Those void of truth never ask about anything because their ego and arrogance prevent them from doing so. Therefore, they will always remain ignorant. Those on the right path to Truth are extremely heart-driven and childlike in their quest, always asking questions, always wanting to understand and know everything — and are not afraid to admit they don't know something. However, every truth seeker does need to breakdown their ego first to see Truth. If the mind is in the way, the heart won't see anything. — Suzy Kassem Be comfortable with discomfort Seeking criticism is uncomfortable, and if you’re nervous about it, it will show up in your voice and your body language. Now, think about the person at the other end of the table. If you’re so nervous about getting this feedback, how nervous might they be in giving it? Learn to embrace discomfort. Be calm and composed to make the feedback giver feel at ease, too. And don’t forget this most important thing: once you ask the question, don’t fill silence with words. It’s tempting to keep speaking assuming it will make the conversation easier, but the more words you stuff into the question, the harder it gets to comprehend and respond back. Give them a few seconds to think through your question. Embrace the uncomfortable silence. Count to 10 in your head if you find it really hard to do at first. Most people, in these few seconds, will find something useful to share. Others may need more time. Don’t pressure them to respond instantly. Request them to think through your question and share inputs later. Here’s what you can say: I might have put you on the spot with this question. I understand if you need more time to give me feedback. I’d appreciate it if you could think through this question and help me with useful input next time. I am trying to do better as a leader, and every feedback counts. Silence is only frightening to people who are compulsively verbalizing. — William S. Burroughs To become comfortable with discomfort, follow these practices: Step out of your comfort zone regularly. Challenge yourself to engage in activities that are hard to do at first. Explore new experiences than you’re used to. Challenge the status quo and take calculated risks. Be ok with the awkwardness when you try something new. Embrace the emotions you feel when doing something difficult and reframe them in a positive light. Continuously stepping out of your comfort zone will make such conversations easier. When your mind and body are tuned to consider discomfort as an essential part of growth, seeking criticism won’t feel so unnatural. Demonstrate it in your actions Asking for feedback from your team is definitely a positive step. It demonstrates that you’re invested in learning and growing as a leader. However, what you do with that feedback matters as much. If you keep collecting feedback but never act on it, or your team sees no change in your behaviors and actions, they will assume that their suggestions don’t matter much. They’ll stop sharing feedback proactively, and even when you ask for it, they won’t see a point in sharing it. If you want to make sure that receiving feedback is not a one-time affair, follow up and close the loop on their feedback. To do this: Tell them what you plan to do with their suggestions or concerns. When you act on their feedback, share your progress irrespective of the outcome. If the feedback involves changing your behavior, keep seeking feedback on how you’re doing—are you staying the same, getting worse or making progress and becoming better? If their suggestion or concern can’t be addressed, don’t go mum. Setup the right expectations and clarify why you chose to keep it this way. Habit changes don’t happen overnight. However, holding yourself accountable to put in the effort and seeking continuous feedback can help you stay on track. The only thing worse than not requesting feedback is not acting on it. — Frank Sonnenberg Legendary coach Vince Lombardi once said, "Leaders aren’t born, they are made." Leaders who bury their heads in the sand by avoiding difficult feedback stay ignorant of the harmful effects their behaviors and actions have on people. Those who embrace it take their teams to great heights. If you’re a leader, ignoring your ignorance is not an option. Be courageous. Face your fears. Get the feedback you need. Summary Getting actionable feedback from your employees is important to lead. The only way to know what your employees feel about you is to go and ask for it. Getting honest feedback is difficult as a leader. Unless you explicitly ask for it, you’re most likely going to get none. Don’t create the faulty image of a perfect leader without flaws. Set real expectations that you are learning and growing much like everyone else. Frame your questions in a way that makes it easy for the feedback giver to share useful inputs. Practice stepping out of your comfort zone regularly. It will make your feedback conversations less scary. Most importantly, don’t seek feedback if you’re not willing to put it into action. Follow me here or on . This article was previously published . LinkedIn here

Why Leaders Fail to Get the Actionable Feedback They Need to Grow

Joey looked out his front window, contemplating Coit Tower. He thought of Artie who had changed his life forever on the crookest street in the world. It felt like a dream when he thought back. Was that day real when he met Artie on this curvy brick street? No matter how unreal those times seemed now, he knew they had happened. His very expensive house on the exclusive brick section of Lombard Street was proof for sure. When Artie gifted him this incredible view of the bay, Joey’s life was forever changed. In the thirty-plus years he had been there, a day did not pass he did not think of and thank Artie for the view. He had met Artie in North Beach. Artie was from out of town. Joey found his British accent charming. Artie had a room at the Fairmont atop Nob Hill while Joey was renting a flat in the basement of an ancient building. Joey’s mind wandered to joyful times spent gallivanting up and down Nob Hill. Artie was a successful writer who traveled the world. Joey and Artie fell deeply in love during those halcyon days. Artie was just in San Francisco for a summer conference. Joey was surprised to hear him say he lived in Sri Lanka. However, any time he was on the West Coast he would come to San Francisco to visit Joey. The last time had been back in 1993. “Joey come visit me on Lombard Street,” said Artie on the telephone “Lombard Street. You are not staying on Nob Hill anymore?” Joey asked. “No, I am over on Lombard Street, 1040 Lombard Street. Come on over Joey I have a surprise for you.” Artie’s voice was pregnant with mystery. Joey was on the most crooked street in the world within the hour. The front window looked out on the bay. He could see the Oakland Bay Bridge and Treasure Island in the distance. San Francisco was an especially magical place back in those days. A place where a poor kid from Turlock might be gifted a dream home on a magical street in a magical city. “What!?” Joey was incredulous that such a gift could be given or would be given. He loved Artie and Artie loved him. Yes, they had a special bond, but a house seemed like too much. “I don’t have any money for a down payment Artie? I cannot afford the mortgage payment even if I did.” “It doesn’t matter Joey. I am giving it to you. It is already paid for. I just have to put the deed in your name,” Artie explained calmly. “I don’t understand. Why?” Joey asked Joey’s revelry was broken when he noticed some rather large SUVs parked in the street. He did not recognize them. Ever since the street had been closed to vehicles other than locals, strange autos on the brick road were conspicuous. Eight men in dark suits exited the vehicles as Joey watched. “NSA!” The men shouted at Joey They surrounded Joey. He was hustled through his front door. Within seconds they were in his living room. “We are here to deliver this,” said one of the suits. He thrust an envelope into Joey’s hand. No one had shown Joey any ID, but he had seen weapons. Joey was unsure what to do. He sat for a moment and then opened the envelope. In it, he found a note in a strange language. A language he never thought he would actually need, Harrapan. Artie had taught Joey Harrapan all those years ago. He had never heard anyone speak about the language. It was a mystery to Joey why Artie had been so adamant that Joey learn the language as part of getting the deed to the house. “This IS the mortgage Joey and mortgages aren’t easy to pay,” Artie explained. Now Joey was looking at a note partially written in Harrapan. The English language portion of the note was about the Clarke-Asimov Treaty. Joey was not unfamiliar with the Clarke-Asimov Treaty. Joey was a big science fiction buff. He had read Asimov’s Foundation series multiple times. He particularly loved Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’s End story. He recalled the stories about how Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov developed an amicable rivalry. It was legendary within science–fiction fandom. The rivalry eventually led to the Clarke–Asimov Treaty. The Clarke–Asimov Treaty stated that each author would refer to the other as the world’s greatest writer in his specialty — and refer to himself as merely second–best. Under these terms, Asimov would crown Clarke as the best science–fiction author ever, while Clarke would anoint Asimov as the greatest science writer. Of course, each could publicly crown himself a close second to the other. The two reputedly created the pact during a shared cab ride. The only time either acknowledged this treaty was in Clarke’s dedication to his book, Report on Planet Three. In that book, Clarke wrote: “In accordance with the terms of the Clarke–Asimov treaty, the second-best science writer dedicates this book to the second-best science-fiction writer.” Joey always wondered if his “friend” Artie was THE Arthur C. Clarke. He sure looked like all of the photos…kind of. Artie was a big fan of those early writers of science fiction. Artie used to always talk about how coincidental it was that Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein had worked at the Philadelphia Naval Yard during World War II. He hinted at some top-secret work Asimov had been exposed to during World War II. Sometimes if he drank a little too much he would say Asimov told Arthur C. Clarke something “special” about the Philadelphia Experiment. In the morning though, he would deny or claim to remember nothing. Joey often asked him about UFOs. Artie would laugh. “Aliens”, he would say with a chuckle, “We don’t need no stinking aliens!” “Well?” asked one of the suits who was not pointing a gun at him startling him from his reflections on the Clarke-Asimov Treaty. Joey looked up. There were three other large men holding large assault weapons aimed in his direction. He felt scared. He struggled to remember anything Arthur had taught him in Harrapan. “I cann…can’t remember,” he pleaded. The suit in front of Joey raised his hand. Joey cowered fearing he was about to be struck. The suit signaled for his compatriots to lower their weapons. “Don’t be afraid. We’re here from your government,” he explained softly. “Don’t worry. My name is Jack. We are with the NSA. You are not in trouble. We just need your help,” he continued. Joey looked like a deer in headlights. He stared at the symbols on the piece of paper. His mind went back to his days with Artie. He remembered Artie talking about the language of a long-lost ancient civilization. The Harrapan script was a mix of letters, but also of glyphs which meant a whole word or concept. He remembered Artie trying to teach him, but the fact that some symbols were whole words while others were simply letters was difficult to tease out of the text. “Look, my name is John Stick. We are with the NSA. We need you to read this text in the native tongue. Intelligence reports you may be the only person on the planet who can read this piece of paper and speak the phrase in the native tongue,” explained the suit as he flashed an official-looking identification card. “What? Why me? I cannot read this,” Joey said weakly. “ I cannot speak Harrapan.” “Harrapan! Yes, that is exactly what you need to do,” shouted the suit named John excitedly. Joey’s mind raced. The symbols did look familiar somehow. He thought about Artie. He smiled. The two had many beautiful moments on the beaches around San Francisco. Joey heard himself whisper, “Jo-E korgin qa Ahrrt-E. Artie loves Joey.” “That’s it!” shouted a woman with a small device in her hand. Suddenly, windows started breaking in the front of the house. It was not just the windows. Everything was breaking. The room was being peppered with bullets. “Vykhod!” The man who called himself John Stick ordered and directed. Everyone moved to the back of the house except Joey. All of the suits and the woman fled out the back as soon as there was a moment of silence. Joey just laid behind his couch shaking as he watched them run to his garage. “FBI! FBI! Hands up. Hands up. Show yourself now or be shot!” There were many loud voices and orders being shouted. “He’s here. He’s here! Joey stood up from behind the couch cautiously. He touched his chest and other parts of his body incredulous there was no blood or injury. He started to cry. “You are not hurt! What did you tell them?” “Tell who? They were the NSA,” Joey defended the fact he had translated the note. He didn’t know who was who anymore. “Look. I am Paul Jerome from the FBI,” said a tall red-haired man with a beard. “Those people were not from the NSA. They were Russians. They blew up the Georgia Guide stones last year.” “Really?” Joey was now interested because he had wondered why these had been blown up. He had planned on visiting them last year while making his annual trip to visit his father in South Carolina. However, traffic in Atlanta had been bad so he skipped the trip. A month later, they were partially blown up and then mysteriously demolished with heavy equipment by local authorities within hours. “Yes, the Russians were looking for the time capsule underneath the guide stones.” “Did they find it?” Joey asked inquisitively “Yes, and that note they gave you was what was in it! We need you to tell us what you read there. Your voice and your voice alone can decode the video squirreled away somewhere on the Ethereum blockchain. The location of the fabled Black Pyramid of the Urals is revealed in the video. This is the real reason for the War in Ukraine. Allegedly, the Ukrainians somehow discovered the location of this ancient structure and discovered its secrets. The Black Pyramid contains a cache of ancient technology. This technology is capable of generating enormous power. These are essentially weapons of mass destruction…in the eyes of many.” Alarm bells went off in his head. He knew he must cooperate or end up in Guantanamo. The next words confirmed this for him. “This is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY Joseph,” the FBI agent said matter-of-factly. “You are the ‘oracle’. Your voiceprint of this message will complete the smart contract and release the video.” “Yessir,” Joey responded obediently. “It was Harrapan sir. This is what I said.” Joey paused and then said “Jo-E korgin qa Ahrrt-E. Artie loves Joey.” He spoke directly into the device thrust into his face. Also published here.

Oracle on Lombard Street: The Harrapan Revelation

Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) has rapidly transformed the way we think about data management and trust in the digital age. At its core, DLT refers to a decentralized database system spread across multiple networked computers. While , the technology behind cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, initially popularized DLT, it's essential to recognize that the ledger landscape has since evolved considerably. blockchain Among these alternatives are Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), such as , which provides more decentralization. Blockchain remains a key player, but DLT has diversified, offering various structures and applications tailored to specific needs. Obyte On the other hand, besides the structure, DLTs could be classified as permissioned (private) and permissionless (public). As the names suggest, they could be used privately by a certain company, organization, or even individual, or publicly and free by everyone. In our case, we’re gonna dive a bit more into the available DLT structures and their main features. Blockchain Of course, this one is the most well-known type of distributed ledger. It consists of a chain of digital blocks, where each block contains a list of transactions. These blocks are linked together using cryptographic hashes (unique IDs). In cryptocurrencies, blocks containing transactions are created by users who decide to do so. They’re known as miners or validators. Anyone with the right equipment or sufficient capital could be one of those users; however, in practice, block production is often dominated by a small (2-5) number of users. All participant nodes must reach a consensus —agree about the state of the network and its valid transactions. For this, blockchains use various mechanisms. The most used of them are Proof-of-Work (PoW) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS). The first one requires a lot of energy to solve complex cryptography, so it's not considered . The second one eliminates the energy part but replaces it by giving block production power to the richer nodes, which may cause unfair centralization. very eco-friendly Bitcoin (BTC), Dogecoin (DOGE), and Monero (XMR) are PoW blockchains. Meanwhile, Ethereum (ETH), BNB Chain (BNB), and Cardano (ADA) are PoS blockchains, just to name a few examples. Distributed Hash Table (DHT) A Distributed Hash Table (DHT) is a decentralized and distributed data structure used in computer networks to efficiently store and retrieve information. Think of it as a massive, virtual storage system that's spread across many connected computers. Each computer holds a part of this data table, and the DHT helps locate where specific pieces of information are stored. Unlike blockchains, DHTs store key-value pairs, much like a distributed dictionary. It’s optimized for efficient data retrieval based on keys. Currently, the main example of this system applied in a crypto ecosystem is the platform Holochain and its native coin, Holo (HOT). They describe the system :\ like this “Rather than thinking of Holochain like blockchain, it may be better to think of it like git repositories for each agent [node] which can be published, shared, synchronized, or merged via a BitTorrent-like DHT (Distributed Hash Table). The provenance of all shared data is strictly enforced and the structure, content, and its compliance with shared application rules are validated by randomized peers.” DHT has been primarily used for distributed data storage and retrieval, though. It still could have unknown exploits in this format. Tempo + Cerberus Tempo is described as a distributed ledger and consensus protocol at the same time. It introduced the concept of a shared ledger with lazy consensus, aiming to reduce communication complexity and achieve scalability. Lazy consensus is an approach where nodes don’t engage immediately. Instead, they accept and process transactions independently, coming to a consensus only when a dispute or conflict arises. Tempo faced limitations related to finality and fault tolerance, which became apparent during testing. To address these issues and further enhance the scalability and performance of their DLT, the crypto ecosystem "Cerberus" in 2020. This is a multi-shard consensus protocol that incorporates elements from Tempo and HotStuff, a consensus protocol that changes leaders with every request to optimize performance. Radix introduced Cerberus leverages massive presharding, allowing for virtually unlimited parallelism in transaction processing. It also introduces a novel "braiding" mechanism to enable atomic transactions across shards. This complexity may make it more challenging for developers to understand and implement, potentially increasing the risk of . bugs or vulnerabilities Directed Acyclic Graph A Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) is a unique data structure and consensus mechanism used in certain cryptocurrencies. Unlike blockchains that arrange transactions in linear blocks, DAGs organize transactions into a graph-like structure without loops, meaning it's acyclic. In a , each transaction serves as a node within the graph. , thus checking prior network activities and making sure they are correctly recorded. This validation process is crucial for transaction security and consensus. DAG-based systems eliminate the need for mining altogether. Instead, users actively participate in securing the network every time they create new transactions. DAG-based system Before a user initiates a transaction, they validate all prior transactions since the network was started They can be faster, cheaper, and more decentralized, but not all DAGs are the same. Each of them has different systems, especially when it comes to consensus. Some of them could be faster than others; some others could have fewer intermediaries. It depends on the specific project since the “DAG” is merely a structure. Popular implementations of this system include platforms like IOTA (MIOTA), Nano (XNO), Obyte (GBYTE), and Hedera Hashgraph (HBAR). The last one isn’t described properly as a “DAG” but uses DAGs inside its own unique . Hashgraph DLT system Obyte as a DAG Every cryptocurrency platform works in its own way, and it’s not different in Obyte. While other DAGs may increase centralization with their consensus mechanisms, Obyte is committed to the idea of a true ledger without middlemen. . Instead, along with an already partially ordered DAG, Obyte has to establish an unambiguous order of transactions and avoid double-spending. In this platform, there aren’t powerful parties (such as miners, privileged users, or companies) to control the network Order Providers (OPs) OPs are typically well-respected individuals or companies that create transactions like everyone else, only that these transactions serve as waypoints for ordering all other transactions. In other words, their transactions are like guides or small headlights for the rest of operations to follow a single path. In return, they get a portion of the transaction fees, but that shouldn’t be the main purpose of an Order Provider. They should be respectable members of the community with great interest in its well-being. And they can’t do a lot of things that miners and validators can — they simply don’t have that power. If we imagine a scenario where they misbehave and collude, they can’t do much. They can’t censor transactions, double-spend, or steal funds. The only thing they can do is stop the network until a new network with a new set of Order Providers is restarted from the point where the old network stopped. That’s not very useful for them. Besides, all the OPs are selected by community voting through . their wallets It prioritizes a true ledger without middlemen, ensuring that powerful parties cannot control the network and maintaining security and practicality at the same time. In the realm of DAG-based cryptocurrencies, Obyte stands out for its commitment to decentralization. Featured Vector Image by Freepik

Understanding Distributed Ledger (DLT) Types: It’s Not Only Blockchain

ডিস্ট্রিবিউটেড লেজার (DLT) প্রকার বোঝা: এটি শুধুমাত্র ব্লকচেইন নয়

Distributed Ledger (DLT)-Typen verstehen: Es ist nicht nur Blockchain

Comprensión de los tipos de libro mayor distribuido (DLT): no es solo blockchain

Comprendre les types de registres distribués (DLT) : il ne s'agit pas seulement de blockchain

वितरित बहीखाता (डीएलटी) के प्रकारों को समझना: यह केवल ब्लॉकचेन नहीं है

分散台帳 (DLT) の種類を理解する: ブロックチェーンだけではない

분산 원장(DLT) 유형 이해: 블록체인만이 아닙니다

Compreendendo os tipos de razão distribuída (DLT): não é apenas Blockchain

Понимание типов распределенного реестра (DLT): это не только блокчейн

Dağıtılmış Defter (DLT) Türlerini Anlamak: Yalnızca Blockchain Değil

Hiểu các loại sổ cái phân tán (DLT): Không chỉ có Blockchain

了解分布式账本 (DLT) 类型：不仅仅是区块链

Return to Pleasure Island

The Worms of Purgatory: When the Hunter Becomes the Hunted

The Worms of Purgatory: যখন শিকারী শিকারে পরিণত হয়

Die Würmer des Fegefeuers: Wenn der Jäger zum Gejagten wird

Los gusanos del purgatorio: cuando el cazador se convierte en cazado

Les Vers du Purgatoire : Quand le chasseur devient le chassé

यातना के कीड़े: जब शिकारी शिकार बन जाता है

煉獄の虫：狩る者が狩られる時

연옥의 벌레: 사냥꾼이 사냥당할 때

Os vermes do purgatório: quando o caçador se torna caçado

Araf Solucanları: Avcı Av Olduğunda

Những con sâu luyện ngục: Khi thợ săn trở thành kẻ bị săn

炼狱之虫：当猎人成为猎物

Lasers by Hal Hellman, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . COMMUNICATIONS here COMMUNICATIONS Future deep space missions are expected to require extremely high data transmission rates (on the order of a million bits per second) to relay the huge quantities of scientific and engineering information gathered by the spacecraft. Higher data rates are necessary to increase both the total capacity and the speed of transmission. By comparison, the Mariner-4 spacecraft that sent back TV pictures of Mars had a data rate of only eight bits per second—a hundred thousand times too small for future missions. The use of lasers would mean that results could be transmitted to earth in seconds instead of the 8 hours it took for the photos to be sent from Mariner-4. One of the problems to be solved in using lasers for deep space communication, oddly enough, is that of pointing accuracy. Since the beam of laser energy is narrow, it would be possible for the radiation to miss the earth altogether and be lost entirely unless the laser were pointed at the receiver with extreme precision. Aiming a gun at a target 50 yards away is one thing; aiming a laser from an unmanned spacecraft 100 million miles away is quite another. It is believed, however, that present techniques can cope with the problem. Another peculiarity of laser communication is that it will probably be accomplished faster and more readily in space than here on earth. Powerful though laser light may be, it is light and is therefore impeded to some extent by our atmosphere even under good conditions. Data transmissions of 20 and 30 miles have already been accomplished in good weather with lasers. But if you have ever tried to force a searchlight beam or shine automobile headlights through heavy fog, rain, or snow, you will appreciate the magnitude of the problem under these conditions. The use of infrared frequencies helps to some extent, since infrared is somewhat more penetrating, but the poor-weather problem is a serious one. A possible solution is the use of “light pipes”, similar to the wave guides already in use for certain microwave applications over short distances. But as often happens, new developments create new needs; how, for example, can we get the laser beam to stay centered in the pipe and follow curves? A series of closely spaced lenses, about 1000 per mile, probably would accomplish this, but too much light would be lost by scattering from the many lens surfaces. Scientists are experimenting with a new kind of “lens”, one that uses variations in the density of gases to focus and guide the beam automatically. Since there are no surfaces in the path of the light beam, and since the gas is transparent and free of turbulence, the laser beam is not appreciably weakened or scattered as it travels through the pipe. Figure 31 Laser light beam being guided through a “light pipe” by a gas “lens”. Heating coil (lower left) or mixture of gases (lower right) are two possible ways of maintaining proper density gradient in the gas. shows how the gas focusing principle might be used to guide a beam through a curving pipe. The shading represents the density of the gas. Several means have been developed to keep the gas denser in the center than around the outside. When the pipe curves, the light beam starts moving off the axis of the pipe. The gas then acts like a prism, deflecting the light beam in the direction of the curvature of the “prism”. Figure 31 In communication between distant space and earth, a light pipe might be a little cumbersome; hence it may prove necessary to set up an intermediate orbiting relay station that will, particularly in cases of poor weather, intercept the incoming laser beam and convert it to radio frequencies that can penetrate our atmosphere with greater reliability. Powering space-borne lasers will, of course, be a problem. Indeed one of the major unsolved problems in production of spacecraft and long-term satellites is the provision of an adequate supply of power. Fuel cells and solar cells have helped but do not give the whole answer. One other approach has already been developed: a sun-pumped laser. Sunlight focused onto the side of the laser (see ) provides the pumping power, enabling the device to put out 1 watt of continuous infrared radiation, enough for special space applications. Descendents of this device could produce visible light if this is deemed desirable. Figure 32 Another approach, using , is even more intriguing and may have greater consequences. Chemical lasers will derive their energy from their internal chemistry rather than from the outside. A mixture of two chemicals may be all that is needed to initiate laser action aboard a spacecraft or satellite. (Chemical lasers also offer the promise of even greater concentrations of power than have been achieved heretofore, which may make them useful in plasma research.) chemical lasers With all these possibilities, it may still be that spacecraft will need more power than is available on board. The narrow beam of the laser offers one more fascinating possibility, especially in the case of satellites relatively near earth. The light of a laser might actually be used to beam energy to a receiver, either for immediate use or storage. It would then become possible to “refuel” satellites at will, giving them much greater capabilities. If available laser power is great enough, laser beams might even be used to push satellites back into their proper orbits when they begin to wander off course, as they almost invariably do after a while. Figure 32 Artist’s rendering of sun-pumped laser as it would operate in space. The sun’s rays are collected by a parabolic reflector and are focused on the laser’s surface by two cylindrical mirrors. Sun Parabolic Collector Hyperbolic-cylindric secondary mirror Semi-circular-cylindric tertiary mirror Laser beam About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Hal Hellman (2021). Laser. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/65512/pg65512-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

Future deep space missions are expected to require extremely high data transmission rates

Astounding Stories of Super-Science March 1931, by Astounding Stories, is part of HackerNoon’s Book Blog Post series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . Beyond the Vanishing Point - Chapter XII: Mysterious Little Golden Rock CHAPTER XII. Mysterious Little Golden Rock I need not detail the aftermath of our emergence from the atom. Dr. Kent and Babs followed me out within a few moments. But Alan was not with them! He had seen Polter fall. His father and Babs were safe. The sacrifice he had made in leaving Glora was no longer needed. Down there on the rocky plateau, Dr. Kent suddenly realized that Alan was dwindling. "Father, I must! Don't you understand? Glora's world is menaced. I can't leave her like this. My duty to you and Babs is ended. I did my best, Dad—you two are safe now." "Alan! My boy!" He was already down at Dr. Kent's waist, Bab's size. He held up his hand. "Dad, good-by." His rugged, youthful face was flushed, his voice choked. "You—you've been a mighty good father to me. Always." Babs flung her arms about him. "Alan, don't!" "But I must." He smiled whimsically as he kissed her. "You wouldn't want to leave George, would you? Never see him again? I'm not asking you to do that, am I?" "But, Alan—" "You've been a great little pal, Babs. I'll never forget it." "Alan! You talk as though you were never coming back!" "Do I? But of course I'm coming back!" He cast her off. "Babs, listen. Father's upset. That's natural. You tell him not to worry. I'll be careful, and do what I can to save that little city. I must find Glora and—" Babs was suddenly trembling with eagerness for him. "Yes! Of course you must, Alan!" "Find her and bring her out here! I'll do it! Don't you worry." He was dwindling fast. Dr. Kent had collapsed to a rock, staring down with horror-stricken eyes. Alan called up to Babs: "Listen! Have George watch the chunk of gold-quartz. Have it guarded and watched day and night. Handle it carefully, Babs!" "Yes! Yes! How long will you be gone, Alan?" "Heavens—how do I know? But I'll come back, don't you worry. Maybe in only a day or two of your time." "Right! Good-by, Alan!" "Good-by," his tiny voice echoed up. "Good-by, Babs—Father!" Babs could see his miniature face smiling up at her. She smiled back and waved her arm as he vanished into the pebbles at her feet. The eyes of youth! They look ahead; they see all things so easily possible! But old Dr. Kent was sobbing. It has broken Dr. Kent. A month now has passed. He seldom mentions Alan to Babs and me. But when he does, he tries to smile and say that Alan soon will return. He has been very ill this last week, though he is better now. He did not tell us that he was working to compound another supply of the drugs, but we knew it very well. And his emotion, the strain of it, made him break. He was in bed a week. We are living in New York, quite near the Museum of the American Society for Scientific Research. In a room of the biological department there, the precious fragment of golden quartz lies guarded. A microscope is over it, and there is never a moment of the day or night without an alert, keen-eyed watcher peering down. But nothing has appeared. Neither friend nor foe—nothing. I cannot say so to Babs, but often I fear that Dr. Kent will suddenly die, and the secret of his drugs die with him. I hinted once that I would make a trip into the atom if he would let me, but it excited him so greatly I had to laugh it off with the assurance that of course Alan will soon return safely to us. Dr. Kent is an old man now, unnaturally old, with, it seems, the full weight of eighty years pressing upon him. He cannot stand this emotion. I think he is despairingly summoning strength to work upon his drugs, fearful that he will not be equal to it. Yet more fearful to disclose the secret and unloose so diabolical a power. There are nights when with Dr. Kent asleep, Babs and I slip away and go to the Museum. We dismiss the guard for a time, and in that private room we sit hand in hand by the microscope to watch. The fragment of golden quartz lies on its clean white slab with a brilliant light upon it. Mysterious little golden rock! What secrets are there, down beyond the vanishing point in the realm of the infinitely small! Our human longings go to Alan and to Glora. But sometimes we are swept by the greater viewpoint. Awed by the mysteries of nature, we realize how very small and unimportant we are in the vast scheme of things. We envisage the infinite reaches of astronomical space overhead. Realms of largeness unfathomable. And at our feet, everywhere, are myriad entrances into the infinitely small. With ourselves in between—with our fatuous human consciousness that we are of some importance to it all! Truly there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy! INVISIBLE EYES An invisible eye that can see in the dark and detect the light of a ship two miles away on a black foggy night was introduced to newspaper men recently by its inventor, John Baird of television fame. He calls the invention "Noctovisor." It looks like a large camera and can be mounted on a ship or airplane. It was announced that it would soon be tried on trans-Atlantic liners. For the demonstration it was mounted in the garden of Baird's cottage, overlooking the twinkling lights of Dorking. In the dark beyond those lights an automobile headlight three miles away pointed toward the cottage. At a signal from the inventor a sheet of ebonite, as a substitute for a supposed fog, two miles thick, was placed in front of the headlight. Not a glimmer was then visible to the human eye, but it appeared on the noctovisor screen as a bright red disc. It was supposed to have particular value in permitting a navigator in a fog to tell the exact direction of a beacon and to estimate roughly its distance. The device is a combination of camera lens, television transmitter and television receiver. The lens throws a distant image on the exploring disc of the transmitter, through which it acts on a photo-electric cell sensitive to invisible infra-red rays. The receiver amplifies it for the observer. MOON ROCKETS Seventeen years of experimenting on a rocket designed by Prof. Albert H. Goddard of Clark University, to shriek its way from the earth to the moon, came to a glorious climax recently in an isolated and closely guarded section of Worcester when the rocket tore its flaming way through the air for a quarter-mile with a roar heard for a distance of two miles. Prof. Goddard said the rocket was shot out of its cradle, careened through the air a mass of flame, and landed about where it was directed to land, beyond the Auburn town line. Test of a new propellant was the object of his demonstration, Prof. Goddard said. Two or three times a week a small rocket goes up into the air a short distance, not enough to attract great attention. But the latest was a nine-foot rocket, shot out of a forty-foot tower. Near the tower is a safety post built of stone, with slits for peepholes. The experimental party stepped into the safety zone when the rocket was started. The forty-foot tower is built much like an oil well derrick. Inside it are two steel rails to fill grooves in the rocket. These guide the rocket much as rifling in a gun barrel guides a bullet. Prof. Goddard, when teaching at Princeton in 1912, evolved the idea of shooting a rocket to the moon by means of successive charges of explosive much as the new German rocket motor racers are powered. In this most recent experiment he used a new powder mixture. Prof. Goddard issued a statement after the demonstration, which said: "My test was one of a series of experiments with rockets using an entirely new propellant. There was no attempt to reach the moon or anything of such a spectacular nature. The rocket is normally noisy, possibly enough to attract considerable attention. The test was thoroughly satisfactory, nothing exploded in the air, and there was no damage except possibly that incidental to landing." About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Various. 2009. Astounding Stories of Super-Science, March 1931. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved May 2022 from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/30166/30166-h/30166-h.htm#Beyond_the_Vanishing_Point . This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org , located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

HEADLIGHT

HeadlightData.com

1-10 employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

HEADLIGHT

EVERGREEN INDEX #4718

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Headlight WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

HEADLIGHT

HeadlightData.com

1-10 employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

HEADLIGHT

EVERGREEN INDEX #4718

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT HEADLIGHT

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Headlight WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!