Uh...nuclear propulsion is overrated and a red herring. At least any forms of it that have been currently developed. They're actually all inferior to chemical propulsion with local resource utilization.
But let me ask you a question: why DO YOU CARE that the "entrenched, fossilized launch services" exist? Does it affect you in any way that the military or communication companies save a bit on money on a launch?
It's not just military and communication. Highly capable and cheap launch vehicles are perhaps the most important step on the path to cheaper and more capable scientific probes and space-based telescopes, since they will allow for greater capabilities simultaneously with lesser engineering effort. I.e., they would cheapen both the launches and the payload designs. For people interested in natural sciences, this is a rather tempting prospect, since the funding of scientific missions isn't unlimited.
A large portion of what Tesla is researching and building, including batteries with low overall operating costs and autonomous driving, will be absolutely required for non-individual vehicles, too. Maybe in a few decades, but still. It doesn't have to be a world of Teslas, but it will head much closer to it that to the current world of individual ICE cars.
Oh this is mostly true, of course you've just forgotten that the left pretty much has a strangehold on culture and has for oh 60 odd years at this point in most of the west.
You have yet to find a polarized school in your country? How would you know if the viewpoints you're exposed to have already been censored and curated.
They're not. It's just that nobody gives a fuck in schools what your political leanings are. And why would they? That's not what a school is for. American schools, on the other way...
Hehe. Nope. We do have a right wing and they don't have to hide. It's just that our schools don't have this kind of political arena aftertaste to them. That's not to say that individuals in schools have no political leanings on their own but you simply don't get the kind of Douglas-Adamsian idiocracy regularly observed at US and UK schools (WTF is a "diversity officer"?:-p). Schools have also been notably apolitical, political-parties-wise, ever since they stopped being brainwashing centers of the Communist party in 1989. I guess nobody simply wants to repeat the same experience (except for the surviving Communists of course).
No, for Bitcoin, for example, it's "only" tens of millions of tons, although it comes from ASICs these days. Ethereum is perhaps a third of that. I think the point is that of all the human activities, this is one of the things that can be trivially lower in its footprint - traditional banking has vastly lower energy costs per transaction.
So your argument against X (hardware protection) having been implemented in Y (the computers MULTICS ran on) even earlier than somewhere else is that Y is old? That's not exactly strengthening your case.
Furthermore, what Multics had to do with PDP-10 is beyond me. You sure you didn't get some crosstalk in your wiring?
There's a problem with your reasoning. The progressive left, and in general political left across the west have been frothing at the mouth and pushing to censor people for the better part of 15 years now. Now you've got an entire group of people that believe that free speech should be restricted if it hurts feelings and/or desire to expand hate speech laws to cover feelings. If you don't think so, you haven't really been paying attention.
I've been paying attention to the fact that the two sides are not really all that different, they just do sometimes things differently. The conservatives have been doing these things for centuries, largely under religious guise and/or in family settings instead. So left-wing activists are doing that in schools? Frankly, I don't see how any of the sides is the lesser asshole in this clash.
The last oh 7-8 years or so, they've started moving directly into violence.
Ahhh, *you* haven't been paying attention to the last century, have you?
Universities are pretty damned cancerous these days in terms of stifling speech outside of what's approved
Maybe in America, not so much in large parts of Europe. In terms of left-vs-right, I have yet to find a polarized school in my country.
The Right censors those who act against social standards
Right now it seems that the right in power would really love to censor those who are trying to prosecute those who act against social standards. If the right were actually censor those who act against social standards, that would be a mighty improvement.
They start with the kooks, then they go after the semi-kooks, then they go after the controversial, then the semi-controversial....and by the 2020 election pretty much anyone to the right of Che Guevara is a persona non grata on the modern internet. And that's how democracy dies. Say anything you want as long as no one can hear you
Every four years, the other side has the chance to do the same thing itself. Apparently this is a venerable American tradition...
No, it logically leads to the conclusion that there's much less evidence, either positive or negative, for the levels and areas of manipulatibility of men. But marketing in the US is clearly much more women-focused so it is also a logical conclusion that it is more successful at manipulating them (otherwise why would all that extra money be spent by companies if it doesn't bring in extra money). Which makes the claims factual, and if that reality is misogynistic, you can't blame the claimant for that.
post A: "women... are... gullible idiots who can be readily manipulated by modern marketing methods.
strongly implied in post A: *only* women are gullible idiots.
post B: men are gullible idiots too. Here are some cases where that happened.
The problem is that because of US market realities, it is *mostly* women who *actually* get manipulated by modern marketing methods. Men would be too, if they were interesting to marketers...but they mostly aren't. So they don't.
The topic moved on from pockets, to the GGP basically saying women are shit to people calling him out to people defending him. And you appear to be defending his claim that women are shit.
Perhaps you're projecting, since that claim doesn't appear there.
You clearly have no idea what whataboutism is.
I'm pretty sure that "But some men are buying impractical trucks!" definitely counts as whataboutism. And apparently I'm not the only one with that opinion.
I guess nobody must be demanding pay equity, if we all get what we demand.
Apparently they are, to a much higher extent than they're demanding equal-sized pockets, otherwise the pockets would be only 10% shorted and not 50% shorter as the summary claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'd believe the sixty years, but forty seems like a serious stretch.
In one quarter BAIC accomplished more than Tesla has in 15 years.
By what metrics in particular? Tesla's problems notwithstanding, that statements seems rather incredible for any single manufacturer.
Were Honda's and Toyota's vehicles really so bad forty years ago compared to contemporary western vehicles? I don't seem to recall that.
that's going to land on our descendants' heads.
Metaphorically, perhaps. Literally, that's rather implausible without violating the laws of physics.
Uh...nuclear propulsion is overrated and a red herring. At least any forms of it that have been currently developed. They're actually all inferior to chemical propulsion with local resource utilization.
But let me ask you a question: why DO YOU CARE that the "entrenched, fossilized launch services" exist? Does it affect you in any way that the military or communication companies save a bit on money on a launch?
It's not just military and communication. Highly capable and cheap launch vehicles are perhaps the most important step on the path to cheaper and more capable scientific probes and space-based telescopes, since they will allow for greater capabilities simultaneously with lesser engineering effort. I.e., they would cheapen both the launches and the payload designs. For people interested in natural sciences, this is a rather tempting prospect, since the funding of scientific missions isn't unlimited.
The tent magically makes bumpers stick less?
A large portion of what Tesla is researching and building, including batteries with low overall operating costs and autonomous driving, will be absolutely required for non-individual vehicles, too. Maybe in a few decades, but still. It doesn't have to be a world of Teslas, but it will head much closer to it that to the current world of individual ICE cars.
Oh this is mostly true, of course you've just forgotten that the left pretty much has a strangehold on culture and has for oh 60 odd years at this point in most of the west.
Oh, my sweet summer child... You have no idea what it means when the left has a stranglehold on culture
You have yet to find a polarized school in your country? How would you know if the viewpoints you're exposed to have already been censored and curated.
They're not. It's just that nobody gives a fuck in schools what your political leanings are. And why would they? That's not what a school is for. American schools, on the other way...
Hehe. Nope. We do have a right wing and they don't have to hide. It's just that our schools don't have this kind of political arena aftertaste to them. That's not to say that individuals in schools have no political leanings on their own but you simply don't get the kind of Douglas-Adamsian idiocracy regularly observed at US and UK schools (WTF is a "diversity officer"? :-p). Schools have also been notably apolitical, political-parties-wise, ever since they stopped being brainwashing centers of the Communist party in 1989. I guess nobody simply wants to repeat the same experience (except for the surviving Communists of course).
No, for Bitcoin, for example, it's "only" tens of millions of tons, although it comes from ASICs these days. Ethereum is perhaps a third of that. I think the point is that of all the human activities, this is one of the things that can be trivially lower in its footprint - traditional banking has vastly lower energy costs per transaction.
So your argument against X (hardware protection) having been implemented in Y (the computers MULTICS ran on) even earlier than somewhere else is that Y is old? That's not exactly strengthening your case.
Furthermore, what Multics had to do with PDP-10 is beyond me. You sure you didn't get some crosstalk in your wiring?
Looks like even Microsoft did something right with their micro kernel design.
Uhm...
...a monolithic system, such as Linux, Windows or MacOS...
Hell, they even moved graphics subsystem and a web server into kernel space.
There's a problem with your reasoning. The progressive left, and in general political left across the west have been frothing at the mouth and pushing to censor people for the better part of 15 years now. Now you've got an entire group of people that believe that free speech should be restricted if it hurts feelings and/or desire to expand hate speech laws to cover feelings. If you don't think so, you haven't really been paying attention.
I've been paying attention to the fact that the two sides are not really all that different, they just do sometimes things differently. The conservatives have been doing these things for centuries, largely under religious guise and/or in family settings instead. So left-wing activists are doing that in schools? Frankly, I don't see how any of the sides is the lesser asshole in this clash.
The last oh 7-8 years or so, they've started moving directly into violence.
Ahhh, *you* haven't been paying attention to the last century, have you?
Universities are pretty damned cancerous these days in terms of stifling speech outside of what's approved
Maybe in America, not so much in large parts of Europe. In terms of left-vs-right, I have yet to find a polarized school in my country.
Scratch that, this is even better. Social standards, my ass..
The Right censors those who act against social standards
Right now it seems that the right in power would really love to censor those who are trying to prosecute those who act against social standards. If the right were actually censor those who act against social standards, that would be a mighty improvement.
They start with the kooks, then they go after the semi-kooks, then they go after the controversial, then the semi-controversial....and by the 2020 election pretty much anyone to the right of Che Guevara is a persona non grata on the modern internet. And that's how democracy dies. Say anything you want as long as no one can hear you
Every four years, the other side has the chance to do the same thing itself. Apparently this is a venerable American tradition...
I believe it's called Googleplex.
One might argue that because of the long tail of small things in the known universe, this is true for men's pocket as well. ;)
No, it logically leads to the conclusion that there's much less evidence, either positive or negative, for the levels and areas of manipulatibility of men. But marketing in the US is clearly much more women-focused so it is also a logical conclusion that it is more successful at manipulating them (otherwise why would all that extra money be spent by companies if it doesn't bring in extra money). Which makes the claims factual, and if that reality is misogynistic, you can't blame the claimant for that.
Yeah, but the joke was getting old. At least now we have a new one.
Possibly, but what will you do with such misguided voters in the next two years?
post A: "women ... are ... gullible idiots who can be readily manipulated by modern marketing methods.
strongly implied in post A: *only* women are gullible idiots.
post B: men are gullible idiots too. Here are some cases where that happened.
The problem is that because of US market realities, it is *mostly* women who *actually* get manipulated by modern marketing methods. Men would be too, if they were interesting to marketers...but they mostly aren't. So they don't.
Spoiler alert: it was.
By gods! That settles it.
The topic moved on from pockets, to the GGP basically saying women are shit to people calling him out to people defending him. And you appear to be defending his claim that women are shit.
Perhaps you're projecting, since that claim doesn't appear there.
You clearly have no idea what whataboutism is.
I'm pretty sure that "But some men are buying impractical trucks!" definitely counts as whataboutism. And apparently I'm not the only one with that opinion.
I guess nobody must be demanding pay equity, if we all get what we demand.
Apparently they are, to a much higher extent than they're demanding equal-sized pockets, otherwise the pockets would be only 10% shorted and not 50% shorter as the summary claims.