I've not read the book, but everything in the movie indicates that the normal mode did involve a large amount of delta v for Hermes to enter and leave Mars (and Earth) orbit.
Hermes was in stable orbit the entire time they were down on the surface for the mission, which is how they were able to evacuate at the beginning without worrying about the proper time to rendezvous with Hermes.
The issue was that Hermes was intended to have enough fuel to leave Earth orbit and get to Mars, enter and then later leave Mars orbit, then return to Earth and enter orbit there. As such it was provided with enough fuel to accomplish those maneuvers, along with the usual safety margin, but no more.
(Spoilers after this point)
So when it came time for the fly by they'd already used all the fuel needed to get into and out of Mars orbit on the last pass. As well as some of the fuel they would have used to get back into Earth orbit before they decided to change the plan. As well as a little more re-accelerating for the Earth slingshot. Meaning that from a very rough "number of maneuvers" viewpoint they'd already used somewhere over 3/4ths of their fuel, not counting the safety margin.
So at the point they got back to Mars they didn't have nearly enough fuel to enter orbit, which is why they needed to do the flyby pickup. Likewise the ascent vehicle was never intended to reach high orbit, which is why they needed to lighten the load so much.
Hermes would have been coasting back to Earth on fumes after that, with barely enough fuel to decelerate on arrival and no margin for error. In fact, although it wasn't mentioned in the film, it's possible they were intending to return without even enough fuel to fully brake on return and there was a plan to send up a booster with extra fuel to meet them as they arrived.
"It sounds like a no-brainer, but [...] Hearing something like this, over and over if necessary, can only help what has become an epidemic of poor Western dietary trends."
Ever notice how a study comes out that says something people don't like, usually but not always about diet or psychology, and people here will try to pick it apart with "correlation does not equal causation" or argue there's some obvious factor that the people running the experiment forgot to account for.
And does anyone else recall that report awhile back about how scientists rarely try to reproduce studies, and how outraged everyone was by it? Or the report that most psychological studies couldn't be reproduced?
So if it's something the zeitgeist disagrees with it's "you didn't do it right, you need to do it again but differently and better". But in case like this where most people seem to agree with the conclusion it's "well that was obvious" or "they already did a study proving that", with the sometimes stated but usually implied closer "that was a waste of time and money."
In essence, everyone wants scientists to keep rerolling their studies, under the guise of reproducibility and changing variables, until they get a result the current audience agrees with, and then dear gods stop while you're ahead! Don't even look at the subject again lest you change the conclusion by observing it!
"Tesla says that the car features 'a medical grade HEPA filter strips outside air of pollen, bacteria, viruses and pollution before circulating it into the cabin.'"
I'm guessing they don't just use that filter all the time because they don't want to wear out a (presumably) much more expensive filter?
And silly name aside, i could actually see using this feature to defend against the relatively benign bio attacks of skunks and that portion of I-5 in central California right next to all the cattle lots.
There are generic codes and work arounds, but insurance companies are threatening not to pay up if they decide the code for an incident is "too generic."
And yes, the doctors and the people responsible for filling out the forms are _not_ happy with the new system and think it's a waste of time, but it doesn't seem like they feel they can push back against the insurance industry on this.
And then close Firefox, open it again, with this post as the only tab. 349,349 K. Opening up a second tab takes it to 357,096 K.
So when you start Firefox has a base footprint of about 340 K + 8K per tab. (Depending on the contents of the page of course.) If it could actually _stay_ like that and recover memory properly when i close tabs then i wouldn't complain. Instead however there was about 1.6 GB of crap stuck in memory before i closed the program completely.
I would buy into that argument more if Firefox actually released all the memory from tabs when you were done doing using them.
Coincidentally i just happen to have 100 tabs open, spread across 9 windows, and Firefox is currently consuming 2,871,288 K of private memory.
Close one window with 8 (graphically dense tabs). Wait 30 seconds. Now down to 2,802,295 K.
Close a window with 15 tabs of webcomics. Wait 30 seconds. Now down to 2,717,452 K
I won't bore with you with the rest of the details. Continue closing windows, then tabs, until this post is the only tab left. Still using 1,979,024 K!
The other 99 tabs were apparently just a little it's over 9000 K each, but this last tab is holding on to almost 2 GB of memory with a death grip
The incentive to close extraneous tabs and windows is pretty minuscule when it doesn't actually gain me that much. So instead i open as many tabs as i feel like, then just close everything and start over when either Firefox or the PC starts getting sluggish.
That may be what the original article is saying, but the Slashdot summary draws the conclusion "either humanity really is the only intelligent species in this part of the universe, or advanced civilizations are far more efficient in their use of energy than is reasonable to assume."
Even disregarding the the assumption about what it's reasonable to assume, that's a completely false dichotomy. Trying to make a direct correlation between average intelligence of a group and how technologically advanced they are is provably wrong even if we just stick to Earth. Or as the GP pointed out, if an alien civilization the next galaxy over that was exactly as technologically advanced as we are performed the exact same study, and used the same false correlation as the summary, would conclude that they are the only intelligent life in the area.
It's not just arrogant, it's stupid and the person saying it is in violent disagreement with themself.
"Why, when we are trying to encourage children to take up all things computing, is Programmers Day such a big flop?"
"If you don't know why it's the 256th day, then you probably aren't a programmer and there is no point in explaining."
"How about instead: Teach someone to program just a little bit."
They probably meant it as a joke (right before saying there were better alternatives than "telling jokes and other fairly lame stuff") but if so then they're incredibly tone deaf and not aware of the implications of what they're saying. Starting your spiel by trying to make people feel dumb and/or excluded is no way to entice them into joining your group.
Since i can't tell if the parent is being sarcastic or doubly sarcastic, i'll say this.
If GG had only focused on issues like this, i for one would be cheering them on. But GG didn't come into existence when, for example, Jeff Gerstmann was fired under pressure from a game developer whose game he reviewed poorly, way back in 2007.
They didn't erupt into fury until an indie female developer had sex with a journalist who never even reviewed her game. _That_ was the ethical violation so shocking that it demanded the creation of a movement. And then followed up by throwing a hissy-fit about Sarkesion's and Wu's op-ed pieces. And because there was no rational reason for the level of objections they were raising they resorted to misogynistic threats and insults of anyone who disagreed with them.
So now actual violations of ethics in game journalism are being overshadowed by the group that's using ethics as a flag to wave over their apparent rage that women are involved in gaming and have opinions about it. Claiming to be concerned about "ethics" while focusing almost exclusively on categories of people you dislike is like saying "think of the children" while drafting laws to enable spying on and imprisonment of the kinds of people you dislike.
I have opinions about the subject and i still think it's not worth a Slashdot story.
Opinions:
Aesthetically the new logo looks okay. Of course the old logo looked okay too, and as someone who's usually not enthusiastic about change for change's sake i really don't see the point.
However, it is also clearly meant to reference the new "flat" "Material Design" that Google has been pushing in their apps and OS. So even though the logo itself looks okay it still makes me grit my teeth a little because of all the other UI changes they've forced on us that make my eyes bleed.
But what really bugs me is that they changed the favicon to match the new logo. I have a habit of doing a google search, opening a couple of the results in new tabs, looking at them, and then jumping back to the google tab to either open some more results or refine the search. So now by habit my brain is looking for the old favicon in the tabs and keeps skipping over the new (and arguably less distinct) favicon. This is a problem that i'm sure i'll get over relatively soon, but it's going to be annoying for the next couple days.
(See? That totally wasn't worth having a Slashdot story to discuss it.)
Here is a very abbreviated timeline of events, from a couple different wikipedia pages:
2009-05: Mojang founded and Minecraft first publicly released.
2010-06: Alpha version of Minecraft released
2011-01: One million copies of Minecraft sold
2011-09: First Minecraft convention
2011-10&11: Official release of Minecraft on PC, Android, and iOS, four million copies sold.
2012-05: Minecraft released on XBox 360, sold over 400,000 units within 24 hours.
2012-05: Over $1 million in merchandise sales.
2012-06: Minecraft Lego sets released.
2013-12: Playstation 3 version released.
2014-09: Playstation 4 and XBOne versions release.
2014-09: Sale of Mojang to Microsoft for $2.5 billion announced.
2014-10: 60 million copies of Minecraft sold.
So i'd hardly call this "suddenly" becoming wealthy, it's not like he won the lotto or anything. It involved a lot of hard work (albeit with an even larger amount of luck) over half decade. He probably became a millionaire sometime in 2011, though the writing was probably on the wall in 2010, and there was a lot of news about him becoming a multi-millionaire in 2012. (And according to the reports i've seen Notch is actually worth about $1.5 billion now, not $2.5 billion. Presumably due to a combination of taxes and not being the sole owner of Mojang.)
I'm sure it may have seemed like it all went by in a blur to him, but if he wanted to work on maintaining normal relationships with the people around him that's something he should have been doing the entire time and it's going to be hard to start now.
Agreed. Like so many other lines of business there are two general strategies they could go for, wide or deep. In the case of media distribution you can try to have as much content as possible, "why subscribe to all those other channels/distributors when you can get it all here in this one spot?" Or they can try to have unique programming that is unavailable anywhere else. "If you want to watch this show you have to subscribe to us."
Doing both can be difficult, both in terms of balance and expense, (but it is the way to go if you want to become a monopoly.) Unfortunately it seems like Netflix is trying to transition between the two, which is a tough sell to the people who originally bought into the service because of what they _used_ to be. They not only have to convince me to be interested in their new original content, they also have to convince me not to care too much about the old licensed content that they're losing.
If any other service (Hulu being at the top of the list) were able to snag all the content that Netflix is dropping Netflix might be in some serious trouble. From what i understand though the reason Netflix is dropping so much content is that the owners have started realizing how much streaming rights are worth, so luckily for Netflix it seems unlikely that any single provider will be able to acquire the same range of content that Netflix used to have.
Well fine, if you are going to be have been right about that then i will be going to be wrong about what will be has been going to be, and the paradox will be going to have been not be happening.
But if the sea level rises enough then Greenland will be underwater. Then the ice will have been going to be in the water, so it will be have been sea ice. So the sea level will be not have been going to rise!
Can we extend this technology to people who spit gum on the sidewalk or toss their cigarette butts on the ground?
The only time i'm ever tempted by the idea of mass surveillance is when i think of the possibility of wreaking a little legal vengeance on all those people who fuck up public spaces for the rest of us because they're too lazy or sociopathic to bother handling their waste properly.
"The legislation would also drastically diminish the usefulness of camera-centric drones like the ones being rolled out by GoPro."
You make it sound like this is some unexpected side effect of the bill, rather than one of the primary reasons for passing the bill.
"would prohibit drones from flying under 350 feet over any property without express permission from the property's owner." [...] "Industry groups say this restriction will kill drone delivery services before they even begin."
If i order a delivery via drone, presumably part of that process would be to give the drone permission to fly into my property. If your delivery drone is unable to go above 350 feet outside of my property and has to buzz everyone else in a direct line between you and me then perhaps you shouldn't be using it to deliver things?
Since Kickstarter came online in 2009, board games and card games have accrued $196 million in pledges, 93% of which went to successful projects. That's even better than video games have done, at $179 million and 85%.
Board games are much more predictable than video games. You need to spend approximately as much person-power figuring out the rules to a board game as you do to a video game. However the art requirements are probably the equivalent to that of a comparatively simple puzzle video game. (Which is not to say that they don't both require good art design to be effective, just that they don't need to come up with designs for dozens of worlds and hundreds of enemies, like you might in an RPG.)
After that however, you're pretty much done with the design. You don't need programmer to develop the entire platform. You need to play test the game itself, but you don't need a QA team continuously checking a whole list of things like "is it still possible to walk through the wall in quadrant three if you do a charge attack while crouching?"
You _do_ need to find a manufacturer to produce the components, but unless you've come up with something really crazy that's pretty much a solved problem. I'm sure that trying to find the best build quality you can for a decent price is a lot of _work_, but you're not going to ask them to change the color of a piece and then be surprised the next day to find that the game now crashes if you try to perform a certain move with that piece.
Board games are also much less prone to feature creep. Too many video games kickstarters get a lot of money and then decide to expand the scope of the game. Or they just fall prey to the natural temptation to add features during development. Very rarely do people working on a board game stop and say something like "but wouldn't it be cool if we also added a mini-game where you capture and train monsters?"
So if you can clearly explain your concept to the audience then they can be very confident that you'll be able to pull it off given proper funding (assuming that your intentions are honest of course) and pretty confident that what comes out at the end is similar to what they were promised at the beginning. That's reflected in the 93% success rate and feeds into the relatively high enthusiasm compared to the size of the total market.
Slashdot Mirror
"Anyone who has any real world experience knows that management by committee just doesn't work."
Just imagine having an Agile standup meeting every day, with the entire team acting as a collective Scrum master. *shudder*
We've already got e-cats!
I've not read the book, but everything in the movie indicates that the normal mode did involve a large amount of delta v for Hermes to enter and leave Mars (and Earth) orbit.
Hermes was in stable orbit the entire time they were down on the surface for the mission, which is how they were able to evacuate at the beginning without worrying about the proper time to rendezvous with Hermes.
The issue was that Hermes was intended to have enough fuel to leave Earth orbit and get to Mars, enter and then later leave Mars orbit, then return to Earth and enter orbit there. As such it was provided with enough fuel to accomplish those maneuvers, along with the usual safety margin, but no more.
(Spoilers after this point)
So when it came time for the fly by they'd already used all the fuel needed to get into and out of Mars orbit on the last pass. As well as some of the fuel they would have used to get back into Earth orbit before they decided to change the plan. As well as a little more re-accelerating for the Earth slingshot. Meaning that from a very rough "number of maneuvers" viewpoint they'd already used somewhere over 3/4ths of their fuel, not counting the safety margin.
So at the point they got back to Mars they didn't have nearly enough fuel to enter orbit, which is why they needed to do the flyby pickup. Likewise the ascent vehicle was never intended to reach high orbit, which is why they needed to lighten the load so much.
Hermes would have been coasting back to Earth on fumes after that, with barely enough fuel to decelerate on arrival and no margin for error. In fact, although it wasn't mentioned in the film, it's possible they were intending to return without even enough fuel to fully brake on return and there was a plan to send up a booster with extra fuel to meet them as they arrived.
"It sounds like a no-brainer, but [...] Hearing something like this, over and over if necessary, can only help what has become an epidemic of poor Western dietary trends."
Ever notice how a study comes out that says something people don't like, usually but not always about diet or psychology, and people here will try to pick it apart with "correlation does not equal causation" or argue there's some obvious factor that the people running the experiment forgot to account for.
And does anyone else recall that report awhile back about how scientists rarely try to reproduce studies, and how outraged everyone was by it? Or the report that most psychological studies couldn't be reproduced?
So if it's something the zeitgeist disagrees with it's "you didn't do it right, you need to do it again but differently and better". But in case like this where most people seem to agree with the conclusion it's "well that was obvious" or "they already did a study proving that", with the sometimes stated but usually implied closer "that was a waste of time and money."
In essence, everyone wants scientists to keep rerolling their studies, under the guise of reproducibility and changing variables, until they get a result the current audience agrees with, and then dear gods stop while you're ahead! Don't even look at the subject again lest you change the conclusion by observing it!
I agree with your sentiments entirely! Your punctuation, or more particularly the use/non-use of white space around the punctuation... not so much.
Too bad i've (obviously) already posted, or i would mod you +1 Informative for crushing my dreams =/
"Tesla says that the car features 'a medical grade HEPA filter strips outside air of pollen, bacteria, viruses and pollution before circulating it into the cabin.'"
I'm guessing they don't just use that filter all the time because they don't want to wear out a (presumably) much more expensive filter?
And silly name aside, i could actually see using this feature to defend against the relatively benign bio attacks of skunks and that portion of I-5 in central California right next to all the cattle lots.
There are generic codes and work arounds, but insurance companies are threatening not to pay up if they decide the code for an incident is "too generic."
And yes, the doctors and the people responsible for filling out the forms are _not_ happy with the new system and think it's a waste of time, but it doesn't seem like they feel they can push back against the insurance industry on this.
You're absolutely right. Math is hard. Can i leave work early and go shopping? =P
And then close Firefox, open it again, with this post as the only tab. 349,349 K. Opening up a second tab takes it to 357,096 K.
So when you start Firefox has a base footprint of about 340 K + 8K per tab. (Depending on the contents of the page of course.) If it could actually _stay_ like that and recover memory properly when i close tabs then i wouldn't complain. Instead however there was about 1.6 GB of crap stuck in memory before i closed the program completely.
I would buy into that argument more if Firefox actually released all the memory from tabs when you were done doing using them.
Coincidentally i just happen to have 100 tabs open, spread across 9 windows, and Firefox is currently consuming 2,871,288 K of private memory.
Close one window with 8 (graphically dense tabs). Wait 30 seconds. Now down to 2,802,295 K.
Close a window with 15 tabs of webcomics. Wait 30 seconds. Now down to 2,717,452 K
I won't bore with you with the rest of the details. Continue closing windows, then tabs, until this post is the only tab left. Still using 1,979,024 K!
The other 99 tabs were apparently just a little it's over 9000 K each, but this last tab is holding on to almost 2 GB of memory with a death grip
The incentive to close extraneous tabs and windows is pretty minuscule when it doesn't actually gain me that much. So instead i open as many tabs as i feel like, then just close everything and start over when either Firefox or the PC starts getting sluggish.
"Oh, well lets give up then"
That's right! Don't get your ass to Mars!
That may be what the original article is saying, but the Slashdot summary draws the conclusion "either humanity really is the only intelligent species in this part of the universe, or advanced civilizations are far more efficient in their use of energy than is reasonable to assume."
Even disregarding the the assumption about what it's reasonable to assume, that's a completely false dichotomy. Trying to make a direct correlation between average intelligence of a group and how technologically advanced they are is provably wrong even if we just stick to Earth. Or as the GP pointed out, if an alien civilization the next galaxy over that was exactly as technologically advanced as we are performed the exact same study, and used the same false correlation as the summary, would conclude that they are the only intelligent life in the area.
It's not just arrogant, it's stupid and the person saying it is in violent disagreement with themself.
"Why, when we are trying to encourage children to take up all things computing, is Programmers Day such a big flop?"
"If you don't know why it's the 256th day, then you probably aren't a programmer and there is no point in explaining."
"How about instead: Teach someone to program just a little bit."
They probably meant it as a joke (right before saying there were better alternatives than "telling jokes and other fairly lame stuff") but if so then they're incredibly tone deaf and not aware of the implications of what they're saying. Starting your spiel by trying to make people feel dumb and/or excluded is no way to entice them into joining your group.
Since i can't tell if the parent is being sarcastic or doubly sarcastic, i'll say this.
If GG had only focused on issues like this, i for one would be cheering them on. But GG didn't come into existence when, for example, Jeff Gerstmann was fired under pressure from a game developer whose game he reviewed poorly, way back in 2007.
They didn't erupt into fury until an indie female developer had sex with a journalist who never even reviewed her game. _That_ was the ethical violation so shocking that it demanded the creation of a movement. And then followed up by throwing a hissy-fit about Sarkesion's and Wu's op-ed pieces. And because there was no rational reason for the level of objections they were raising they resorted to misogynistic threats and insults of anyone who disagreed with them.
So now actual violations of ethics in game journalism are being overshadowed by the group that's using ethics as a flag to wave over their apparent rage that women are involved in gaming and have opinions about it. Claiming to be concerned about "ethics" while focusing almost exclusively on categories of people you dislike is like saying "think of the children" while drafting laws to enable spying on and imprisonment of the kinds of people you dislike.
I have opinions about the subject and i still think it's not worth a Slashdot story.
Opinions:
Aesthetically the new logo looks okay. Of course the old logo looked okay too, and as someone who's usually not enthusiastic about change for change's sake i really don't see the point.
However, it is also clearly meant to reference the new "flat" "Material Design" that Google has been pushing in their apps and OS. So even though the logo itself looks okay it still makes me grit my teeth a little because of all the other UI changes they've forced on us that make my eyes bleed.
But what really bugs me is that they changed the favicon to match the new logo. I have a habit of doing a google search, opening a couple of the results in new tabs, looking at them, and then jumping back to the google tab to either open some more results or refine the search. So now by habit my brain is looking for the old favicon in the tabs and keeps skipping over the new (and arguably less distinct) favicon. This is a problem that i'm sure i'll get over relatively soon, but it's going to be annoying for the next couple days.
(See? That totally wasn't worth having a Slashdot story to discuss it.)
Here is a very abbreviated timeline of events, from a couple different wikipedia pages:
2009-05: Mojang founded and Minecraft first publicly released.
2010-06: Alpha version of Minecraft released
2011-01: One million copies of Minecraft sold
2011-09: First Minecraft convention
2011-10&11: Official release of Minecraft on PC, Android, and iOS, four million copies sold.
2012-05: Minecraft released on XBox 360, sold over 400,000 units within 24 hours.
2012-05: Over $1 million in merchandise sales.
2012-06: Minecraft Lego sets released.
2013-12: Playstation 3 version released.
2014-09: Playstation 4 and XBOne versions release.
2014-09: Sale of Mojang to Microsoft for $2.5 billion announced.
2014-10: 60 million copies of Minecraft sold.
So i'd hardly call this "suddenly" becoming wealthy, it's not like he won the lotto or anything. It involved a lot of hard work (albeit with an even larger amount of luck) over half decade. He probably became a millionaire sometime in 2011, though the writing was probably on the wall in 2010, and there was a lot of news about him becoming a multi-millionaire in 2012. (And according to the reports i've seen Notch is actually worth about $1.5 billion now, not $2.5 billion. Presumably due to a combination of taxes and not being the sole owner of Mojang.)
I'm sure it may have seemed like it all went by in a blur to him, but if he wanted to work on maintaining normal relationships with the people around him that's something he should have been doing the entire time and it's going to be hard to start now.
Agreed. Like so many other lines of business there are two general strategies they could go for, wide or deep. In the case of media distribution you can try to have as much content as possible, "why subscribe to all those other channels/distributors when you can get it all here in this one spot?" Or they can try to have unique programming that is unavailable anywhere else. "If you want to watch this show you have to subscribe to us."
Doing both can be difficult, both in terms of balance and expense, (but it is the way to go if you want to become a monopoly.) Unfortunately it seems like Netflix is trying to transition between the two, which is a tough sell to the people who originally bought into the service because of what they _used_ to be. They not only have to convince me to be interested in their new original content, they also have to convince me not to care too much about the old licensed content that they're losing.
If any other service (Hulu being at the top of the list) were able to snag all the content that Netflix is dropping Netflix might be in some serious trouble. From what i understand though the reason Netflix is dropping so much content is that the owners have started realizing how much streaming rights are worth, so luckily for Netflix it seems unlikely that any single provider will be able to acquire the same range of content that Netflix used to have.
[This person is an expert at hacking systems using links!]
"Click through that link to see examples of this abuse in action"
o_O
(And yes, i'm aware that URL links are not the same as symbolic links, but the phrasing is still amusing.)
.
Well fine, if you are going to be have been right about that then i will be going to be wrong about what will be has been going to be, and the paradox will be going to have been not be happening.
"None of the ice lost from Greenland is sea ice."
But if the sea level rises enough then Greenland will be underwater. Then the ice will have been going to be in the water, so it will be have been sea ice. So the sea level will be not have been going to rise!
.
Can we extend this technology to people who spit gum on the sidewalk or toss their cigarette butts on the ground?
The only time i'm ever tempted by the idea of mass surveillance is when i think of the possibility of wreaking a little legal vengeance on all those people who fuck up public spaces for the rest of us because they're too lazy or sociopathic to bother handling their waste properly.
So in other words, when it comes to social interactions you tend to phone it in?
"The legislation would also drastically diminish the usefulness of camera-centric drones like the ones being rolled out by GoPro."
You make it sound like this is some unexpected side effect of the bill, rather than one of the primary reasons for passing the bill.
"would prohibit drones from flying under 350 feet over any property without express permission from the property's owner." [...] "Industry groups say this restriction will kill drone delivery services before they even begin."
If i order a delivery via drone, presumably part of that process would be to give the drone permission to fly into my property. If your delivery drone is unable to go above 350 feet outside of my property and has to buzz everyone else in a direct line between you and me then perhaps you shouldn't be using it to deliver things?
Since Kickstarter came online in 2009, board games and card games have accrued $196 million in pledges, 93% of which went to successful projects. That's even better than video games have done, at $179 million and 85%.
Board games are much more predictable than video games. You need to spend approximately as much person-power figuring out the rules to a board game as you do to a video game. However the art requirements are probably the equivalent to that of a comparatively simple puzzle video game. (Which is not to say that they don't both require good art design to be effective, just that they don't need to come up with designs for dozens of worlds and hundreds of enemies, like you might in an RPG.)
After that however, you're pretty much done with the design. You don't need programmer to develop the entire platform. You need to play test the game itself, but you don't need a QA team continuously checking a whole list of things like "is it still possible to walk through the wall in quadrant three if you do a charge attack while crouching?"
You _do_ need to find a manufacturer to produce the components, but unless you've come up with something really crazy that's pretty much a solved problem. I'm sure that trying to find the best build quality you can for a decent price is a lot of _work_, but you're not going to ask them to change the color of a piece and then be surprised the next day to find that the game now crashes if you try to perform a certain move with that piece.
Board games are also much less prone to feature creep. Too many video games kickstarters get a lot of money and then decide to expand the scope of the game. Or they just fall prey to the natural temptation to add features during development. Very rarely do people working on a board game stop and say something like "but wouldn't it be cool if we also added a mini-game where you capture and train monsters?"
So if you can clearly explain your concept to the audience then they can be very confident that you'll be able to pull it off given proper funding (assuming that your intentions are honest of course) and pretty confident that what comes out at the end is similar to what they were promised at the beginning. That's reflected in the 93% success rate and feeds into the relatively high enthusiasm compared to the size of the total market.