FTFY

New Brunswick?

She won. She will now sport a lucrative career as a public... whatever. The narrative has been formed. Political Correctness has no room for objective truth. Just like the crumbling of lies surrounding the Rolling Stone/UVA 'rape', we shouldn't be looking at facts and events. Brianna's feels are more important.

Once again, the most dangerous group to women is formed of other women.

Yes, but now we can find out whether we read Slashdot because we are nerds, or we are nerds because we read Slashdot.

Perhaps in some cases it would be possible to detect that both X and Y were being affected by the same noise, implying the existence of some unknown Z?

The standard t-test for detecting an effect is already probabalistic. In science and medicine a 95% confidence value is commonly used, which means a 1/20 of detecting something that isn't there.

What about when it misinforms?

If I go to a local restaurant site that does not take orders and it is not running SSL just how is it insecure?
It is like a warning that a public park is insecure because it doesn't have a burglar alarm.
Also just because a site uses ssl does not mean that it is malware free or that it has not been hacked and all the user data taken.

When is a false sense of security a good thing?
And please do not tell me that I should worry about the NSA knowing that I was looking at restaurants.

One important point that others above have alluded to but haven't outright stated:

While the exponential scaling of rocket equation is an important limiting issue when building larger and larger rockets, for any given rocket (or rocket configuration) the payload capacity is fixed. If you have a payload that is too large for a Falcon 1Pegasus, but doesn't need the full capacity of a Falcon 9, all that extra capacity goes to waste. It costs essentially the same amount to launch a Falcon 9 at 60% capacity as it does to launch it at 90% capacity. You can share payload with multiple customers, but that limits which orbits they can use.

Space X can calculate how much weight the recovery system and fuel requires and how much money they can save by reusing the first stage, and give a discount to customers who give up that additional payload capacity. If there is a market for those lower cost launches, then great. If not, then keep treating the 1st stage as disposable.

Running a business like this takes a lot of work, and for it to succeed well enough to actually get working rockets off the ground you need to attract top-notch engineers who believe that working for you isn't just a waste of their time (more than a billionaire's plaything), and management that can create the right environment for them to succeed without blowing through your money for nothing. It is much less expensive, less risky and less time consuming to just pay Russia for a thrill ride than to create your own rocket company. So I can understand why most would choose to go that route, and leave the latter for those who genuinely want to shake up the market.

That said, the total payload mass that the ship could support is roughly the same whether it is inside the airship or outside in a gondola, and the more space you want to make available for use, the more mass you would have to dedicate to structure rather than payload. So it would be less cramped than a tiny capsule, but you would still need large expanses of mostly empty space to provide the needed buoyancy.

In practice, it might be better to have a balloon filled with a less dense gas to decrease the total volume needed to support the desired payload, and then have an attached air-filled "gondola" that is nearly as large as the balloon.

Exactly NASA is caught between a rock and a hard space.
They keep having projects started then stopped. The X-33 is a great example.

"Fortunately, most open minded people are willing to accept a vast amount of statistical evidence as proof."
Then get back to me when your sample size is much larger...
Talk about your dumb analogies. BTW you are totally wrong. By the 1980s tobacco smoke had been studied and found to be full of known cancerogenic compounds. They did have mass spectrometers in the 1980s after all.

You like most people are confusing weather with climate. A single drought can not be attributed to climate change it would take a lot more data aka many decades of data.

" but that didn't prevent climate researchers from claiming Katrina-level events will drastically increase in frequency"
I think you are confusing advocates with researchers.
Fear sells after all.

What is so annoying is that most climate change advocates are as clueless about climate as those that deny climate change.
Every hot summer, warm winter, flood, drought or hurricane is proof... No it is weather.
So when you have a slow hurricane season, a drought ends, or an extremely cold winter you have proof that climate change is not happening. No it is just weather people...

The arrogant ignorance of the clueless climate change advocates do more harm than can imagined.

I am greedy and played unfair with a company, now they're playing unfair with me. Wah!