iPad Pro 4:3 264ppi screen = unmatched vertical real estate for SSH CLI and text editing, especially with vertical split screen window management.
Years ago there were 4:3 Thinkpads. Then OEMs moved to 16:9 aspect ratios for video content, some claiming that the economics were no longer viable for 4:3 displays. Yet Apple continues to ship millions of 4:3 screens for iPads.
One segment - old people. It’s a great device - reliable, fast, convenient, and portable. Large screen is a godsend for old guy like me. If you own one, I think you may find it really pleasant to use as side device on your desk.
I had one from 2020, use it all the time over my phone, and I’m upgrading to this one. 512GB though - shame I can’t get the glass :(
I’ve been to both good and bad McDonalds. Burgers and fries from well-run ones can taste very good. In-n-Out has better consistency, and it’s on par with the quality of well-run McDonalds. It’s probably due to the fact that In-n-out has fewer items? I don’t know.
Huh. I like the slightly toasted bun and the generous amount of veggies they put in the Inn n Out burger. I’m not aware of a similar looking or tasting burger on the McDonald’s menu.
He’s basically saying the complexity of current Artemis mission design is indicative of lack of communication, mainly due to politics. He points out some of the obvious problems that isn’t being discussed openly (e.g., large number of untested refueling procedure which needs to be done to get one vehicle to the moon). He is trying to persuade the audience to challenge the current way of doing things, and look to the past successful Apollo programs to see why they were so successful.
I did skip some life story part when watching the video - but the talk was not bad at all. You can use the FF button and use 1.25x speed if that helps. I think it was worth my time.
And to communicate truthfully about why things are being done in the way's they're done.
The in-orbit refueling with lots of Starship/SuperHeavy launches is to increase the payload capacity. That's partly needed due to limits imposed by the Gateway architecture (which are largely due to limits of the Orion capsule). But it's also, and IMO more importantly, due to the fact that a manned mission to Mars (which Artemis is supposed to develop technology for) will certainly need in-orbit refueling.
It's a more complex design than Apollo. Some of that is justified due to engineering goals of the eventual manned Mars mission, even though it is detrimental to the moon mission. Some is justified due to political expediency.
The public statements of the agencies involved have often omitted the real reasons for the decisions, and instead invented justifications expected to be more acceptable. They don't want to say "Orion & SLS are used because it's a jobs program" or "we're spending a lot of money & time now on an in-orbit refueling system a moon mission doesn't need because we got the budget for it and haven't gotten the Mars mission we hope to use it on funded yet".
