1. Humans aren't going to survive in space for 10 years. It's questionable that they'd even survive a trip to Mars without getting riddled with cancer from the cosmic radiation. Sure, if you built a big enough ship to provide some really effective shielding, it's technically possible, but that ship would be enormous and far beyond our current capabilities. I don't think it's feasible at all to launch such a ship from Earth; it would need to be assembled in space.
2. Project Orion is just an idea on paper; it's not within current technology, because no one ever built it. We don't "have the technology" at all. We don't even have the technology to land humans on the Moon. We did decades ago, but we no longer do: all the people who knew how to do that are retired or dead, so we'd have to start over. Of course, we can build powerful rocket motors easier now since we do so regularly now, so building equivalent Moon-landing capability is no longer as difficult as in the 60s, but a lot of things would have to be partially re-invented (e.g., the lander itself, the rover, etc).
3. Does your time estimate include the time needed to decelerate, so the ship doesn't just zip by the black hole with barely any time to collect data? (And if there's people on this ship, they might want to return to Earth...)
>- X has the technology to reliably detect such accounts unless they are incredibly well "hidden"
Has, or had? With massive layoffs, they might not have the staff or know-how left to do this, or the time to implement it.
>- X has the incentive to reliably detect such accounts as it has shown in the past by shutting off data access. It seems to care much more about this than most news websites
OK, but still wanting to do something, and actually doing it, are two different things. I'm not convinced this hollowed-out shell of a company still has such ability.
>especially with all the other stuff going on at X right now. But it's only a matter of time before that changes.
This seems to assume X is going to continue to survive and in fact thrive; I don't think that's a good assumption.
You seem to have confused socialism and fascism. A government too entwined with a small number of corporations, to the point that it seems like it's a government for the corporations rather than the people, is generally considered a feature of fascism. A government embracing some sort of anti-corporate and free-and-open solution like OSS would resemble a socialistic policy more.
But yes, I agree, the USG (and other governments) really should embrace Linux/OSS and help contribute to the ecosystem as well (unlike North Korea, for instance, which has a government-maintained Linux distro called Red Flag, but of course doesn't contribute anything at all).
> A government too entwined with a small number of corporations, to the point that it seems like it's a government for the corporations rather than the people, is generally considered a feature of fascism. A government embracing some sort of anti-corporate and free-and-open solution like OSS would resemble a socialistic policy more.
Huh? We know what the socialist policy was. It was that the government was so closely entwined with corporations that they were staffed by government officials and explicitly considered arms of the government. None of the features you mention in your comment represent a distinction between socialism and fascism. They're shared by both systems. They just go farther in socialism than they do in fascism.
I would recommend a refresher on your political economy knowledge.
In fascism, the government worked very closely with corporations, but it was somewhat a two way street (corporations getting juicy contracts because they're friendly with the right people, owners financing the politicians, etc.). In socialism "corporations" are owned by the state/worker's councils/etc. (which is why there are "government employees" there - technically everyone works for the government). But there are no corporation owners working in their interest getting handouts and/or pushing for specific actions and policies in socialism.
> But there are no corporation owners working in their interest getting handouts and/or pushing for specific actions and policies in socialism.
Are you describing any difference other than the use of the word "owner"?
There are people who control the corporations and receive the benefits of their activities. Those people lobby for policies that are good for them. That's how socialism works. It's also how every other system works. Does it matter whether those people prefer to be called "owners" or "secretaries"?
I believe so. Just look at how much resistance there is to anything non-car in other parts of the country, like in Culvert City CA where they removed cycling lanes. Also, Portland OR where the local government is trying hard to make biking more dangerous by putting the bike lane between parked cars and fast-moving traffic, all because some hotel and business owners want street parking to be more convenient.
Even today in DC, there's still no convenient public transit access for wealthy Georgetown, because they resisted building a station there. M Street is horribly crowded with both cars and pedestrians.
The potential station in Georgetown was skipped for geotechnical reasons. The original town was sited on an enormous and very hard rock above the river and surrounding swamps and that made blasting the huge station cavern prohibitively expensive. The running tunnels are already extra deep there to run under the Potomac.
> like in Culvert City CA where they removed cycling lanes
That's likely unrelated to anti-car sentiment and more so because bicyclists are (on average) complete assholes on the road, since there is no accountability for their behavior.
I'd be fine with bicyclists if we could use cameras/facial recognition to issue fines and arrest warrants, thereby finally domesticating them.
What causes so much danger and suffering and pollution and death are the vengeful sociopathic un-empathic car drivers who combatively view bicyclists as "complete assholes", and go around posting their ignorant, asinine, toxic opinions on social media to justify injuring and killing so many of them, and voting for ill-conceived, short-sighted legislation that makes it so dangerous and impossible to ride bikes safely, instead of providing safe, clean, green bike infrastructure and public transit, all because of their violent, childish misconceptions and greedy, narcissistic, bullying laziness, plus their complete lack of care and empathy for their fellow human beings and the environment.
Medice sp527, cura te ipsum, because your own recent post applies perfectly to you:
>sp527 1 day ago | parent | context | flag | favorite | on: Rethinking the Luddites
>> 'Some with sociopathy may not realize that what they’re doing is wrong while others may simply not care. And sometimes, Dr. Coulter says, it can be both.
>“There’s just a total lack of empathy or recognizing that what they’ve done has hurt someone or it’s only benefited themselves,” he says. “And sometimes they might recognize what they’re doing is wrong, they just don’t care or they justify it to themselves.”'
You sound like you're deeply entrenched in bicyclist activism or something, but I'll try to elaborate on my view any way:
Keeping bicyclists off the road hurts no one. There are cars, public transit, Uber/Lyft, sidewalks+crosswalks, etc. No one is entitled to be able to ride a bike on the road in the same way that no one is entitled to be able to transport themselves via jetpack. If it can't be orchestrated in a way that deters misbehavior, then it's not a workable construct.
That's bullshit and you know it, troll. One day you post a link about how to recognize sociopathy and lack of empathy, and the next day your own malignant sociopathy and lack of empathy is on full display for all to see.
You sound like you're deeply entrenched in alt-right MAGA conspiracy theory anti-environmental climate change denial activism or something. Does the mere thought of 15-minute cities make you furious and apoplectic?
Allowing people to drive cars on public roads certainly can't be orchestrated in a way that deters misbehavior, and their misbehavior regularly injures and kills orders of magnitude more people than bicyclists ever do, by far.
Extremist vengeful anti-bicycle activists like yourself sometimes even purposely harass, injure, and kill bicyclists by "rolling coal" on them, and often driving dangerously on purpose to threaten and scare them.
By your own sick logic, you yourself should not be permitted to drive a car on public roads, because of purposefully irresponsible drivers like these (who are unsurprisingly often from Texas, one of the most historically racist, anti-environmentalist, pro-slavery, anti-LGBTQ+, misogynistic, alt-right, unjustifiably arrogant, anti-bike states in the Union, that STILL tries to foment insurrection and secede from the United States to this day):
Texas Driver Posts Video Rolling Coal on Cyclists—and Is Surprised by the Consequences:
If you really hate sharing the road with bicyclists that much, then move to Texas and vote to secede, but until you manage to kick yourself out of the United States, the law of the land says that you have to tolerate bikes and minorities no matter how much you hate them.
>Yet somehow, Windows 10 and 11 are dripping with contempt for the user, but the EU still hasn't acknowledged that as an antitrust problem worth investigating. Their insistence on pushing users into Edge alone should be enough IMO.
At this point, I'm not sure it's worth investigating. This isn't the 90s when everyone was running application software directly on their PC; now everything is done in the cloud or through your web browser somehow. I honestly find it funny when Windows users have all kinds of agony because of that "contempt" you refer to; if they don't like it, they're free to switch to another OS. I've been watching this for over 25 years now but people just won't give up Windows, even when they only use it for web browsing, so I've lost all sympathy for them, even though the Windows user experience keeps getting worse.
US deserts are full of life; they're very far from lifeless. They're nothing like the endless sand dunes we envision when we think of the Sahara desert, Saudi Arabia, or the planet Arrakis.
It's easier to make new friends in a top-tier city, especially if you're the kind of person who likes those amenities.
The alternative is staying in some backwater place just because one of your friends is there, and you have absolutely nothing to do there except hang out with that friend, while being constantly frustrated with all the other aspects of life in that place.
By this logic, a car salesperson should get the majority of the proceeds from selling you a car. So from a $30k car, $15k goes to the salesperson, $5k to the dealership, $9k to the manufacturer, and $1k to the shipper. You really think this makes any sense?
Simultaneously, there must be harsh penalties for abusing that system. See Samsung's use of a patent on display technology to label third party displays as counterfeits, despite not using that patent nor misrepresenting themselves as Samsung screens.
Censorship is necessary for a civil forum. If you don't censor, you get 8chan, a place full of nothing but vileness. All the shitty people congregate there because no one will censor them or ban them, and all the decent people leave.
Of course, we usually call this "moderation" instead of "censorship", but it's mostly the same, except it isn't done by a government.
So the quality of any forum just comes down to the quality of the moderation. Good moderators keep out the off-topic crap and general nastiness, shitty moderators ban people for saying they don't like the company's new game.
One man's nastiness is another's joke, or opinion. What people don't understand is that if you are ok with the idea of a so called "moderation" that's more on the limiting side, some other group of moderators will come later and apply he same rules but from the different side, and your sides ideas won't see the light of day. It's a very simple concept that people have forgotten why freedom of expression is the first amendment. The problem imo is that it doesn't translate well to online communities that are open to anyone. I'm sure people have thought about this endlessly before, but I don't know if there's any progress.
Online communities are communities like any other: they're a product of the people in them, and the people that control them. You may find some are more to your liking than others. There's no perfect way of doing moderation. If you don't like any kind of moderation at all, you're free to hang out on 8chan with the neo-Nazis.
I promise you I wasn’t. This exactly what I meant. You are in favor of censoring not only the “nasty”, but also what doesn’t go along the narrative you believe in. Nothing by different between that and the church in Middle Ages.
But I’m glad we got to the point where you show your true self :) for what it’s worth, I support your right to say and disagree, tho I think you need to find a better way to express yourself.
Yes, and you showed your true self too: you used this as an opportunity to push your anti-vax conspiracy theory bullshit. So again, go fuck yourself, troll.
We've banned this account for egregiously breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop.
Commenters here need to stick to the rules regardless of how right they are or feel they are. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll use the site as intended in the future.
> you used this as an opportunity to push your anti-vax conspiracy theory bullshit
I'm not anti-vax at all! What did I say that made you think so?
> So again, go fuck yourself, troll.
I'm not trolling at all. And you're breaking multiple HN guidelines in your last three replies: name-calling, dismissiveness, snark, and you're definitely not maintaining a respectful tone.
Maybe you're the one that needs to be hanging around on 8chan?
1. Humans aren't going to survive in space for 10 years. It's questionable that they'd even survive a trip to Mars without getting riddled with cancer from the cosmic radiation. Sure, if you built a big enough ship to provide some really effective shielding, it's technically possible, but that ship would be enormous and far beyond our current capabilities. I don't think it's feasible at all to launch such a ship from Earth; it would need to be assembled in space.
2. Project Orion is just an idea on paper; it's not within current technology, because no one ever built it. We don't "have the technology" at all. We don't even have the technology to land humans on the Moon. We did decades ago, but we no longer do: all the people who knew how to do that are retired or dead, so we'd have to start over. Of course, we can build powerful rocket motors easier now since we do so regularly now, so building equivalent Moon-landing capability is no longer as difficult as in the 60s, but a lot of things would have to be partially re-invented (e.g., the lander itself, the rover, etc).
3. Does your time estimate include the time needed to decelerate, so the ship doesn't just zip by the black hole with barely any time to collect data? (And if there's people on this ship, they might want to return to Earth...)