Military is made of people. They also burn coal, diesel, gas, kerosene. They eat, they need transportation even more than anyone else. If they cared they woild stop themselves first. Look at the wars, look at all of the world militaries. How much CO2 and varoous poisons is produced by them in proportion to the rest of the population? What do wars cost us in terms of CO2 and poisons and all other ways, that military destroys the environment? Will people of this planet stop fighting and disban all militaries of the world? Quite the opposite, the end of our civilization will be accompanied by the biggest acts of aggression, most destruction, largest conflicts on the global scale.

If bombing solved world problems we wpuldn't have any problems, we definitely have enough bombs.

I just flew over half of the planet to the Maldives, these islands will surely disappear sooner than later due to the glaciers melting down. It is nice to be able to visit in the meanwhile.

That said, I won't buy an electric car. Maybe as my fourth or fifth, maybe, but I will keep driving a gas sedan for work and my sports car is just a fum toy, I don't care that an electric one accelerates faster, electric scales also go 0 to 200 in less than a second, doesn't make me want to drive it.

Teslas make me nautios, that is a strong no from me, some Chinese or Korean just are not interesting. Charging time is not there, it must be less than pumping gas, I don't want to plan my days around charging a vehicle. The batteries are too dangerous and the entire thing is too heavy. Cold degrades batteries, heat may cause a fire. No thank you.

I would switch to a nuclear powered car though, that would work for me.

The land of neverending surveilance, home of peeping toms.
Flock cameras are a scourge, constantly recording everyone without any courtorder.

LLMs are trained based on gradient descent, this optimizes data relationships. What this means is that this story is really talking about noise in the data. The history of the disabled is noose when compared to overall history, the LLMs show this clearly, it is just that there are people who really really want to present noise as if it was seriously important, that is their agenda.

He doesn't come up and say: "Hey chat, who should we bomb today?" He is probably just rubber ducking with it. Discussing the background and situations. I would be very surprised if a) he actually allowed it to make the decision for him. and b) he would admit so afterward if this was indeed true.

Wikipedia is an interesting concept and it works decently well as a place to go read a bunch of general information and find decent sources. But LLMs are feeding that information to people in a customized, granular format that meets their exact individual needs and desires. So yeah, probably not as interested in reading your giant wall of text when they want 6 specific lines out of it.

Remember when Encyclopædia Britannica was crying about you stealing their customers, Wikipedia? Yeah, this is what they experienced.

To quote myself from another comment above: I'm not a fan of Darth Cheeto, but it's a stupid take to blame him for something that is the result of 50 years of bipartisan policies. IF I was putting the headline "China has overtaken America" at the feet of any specific individual, it would be a toss up between Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. The "so much winning" in that context was the idea that we would convert the Chinese into western style democracy by growing their economy.

I'm not a fan of Darth Cheeto, but it's is a stupid take to blame him for something that is the result of 50 years of bipartisan policies. IF I was putting the headline "China has overtaken America" at the feet of any specific individual, it would be a toss up between Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. The "so much winning" in that context was the idea that we would convert the Chinese into western style democracy by growing their economy.

No. It isnt. Your 4% figure is closer to what is needed for a rocket sitting on the earth. LEO alone.
Just getting to LEO means on is roughly 50% of the way to anywhere else in the solar system.
The Apollo missions, for example, were 55%.

> The law "undermines the basis of the cost savings and will lead to bulk billing being phased out," the group said.

Good; it's monopolistic, predatory, and ultimately unnecessary. The entire practice is aimed at driving consistency and forced adoption rates, not anything else.

ODF is widely deployed but doesn't meet the "lowest common denominator" bit I mentioned. Try opening an ODF file in Safari on an IOS device or Chrome on Android. ODF files are also file creation formats and not distribution formats.

I want to remind you that I never said 400 tons of fuel, I just used your numbers. I said 8 launches, calling Musk's 4 bull. Even with only 100 tons/fuel per launch, that's 800 tons without changing stuff up should be allow them to stuff more fuel into starship, saving weight via not needing other cargo stuff, just bigger tanks.

Also, I said "reach the moon", not "land on it".

And changing development timelines is pretty normal.

You're still rewriting the proposals to get your figures.
It isn't 100 tons of fuel per launch, it is closer to 150 that they are figuring. Hundreds of m/s is still many tons of fuel.
10 launches, not 16.
400 tons of fuel plus 220 tons is 620T total, that is about 65% fuel, easily enough to reach the moon.
Landing with 220T would need some more, but as I said, i discounted Musk's statement.

Besides, who says we'll go to the moon with v3 instead of the 200t v4?

And with saying a year or more for 5 launches, SpaceX is expending starships faster now. There isn’t any real reason to thing that they won't have 4 or more rockets and be able to turn them around quickly to get the fuel launched rapidly. Lots of testing and development first though. I'll fully admit that.
Basically just figure that starship will have to same reuse abilities as falcon 9, roughly.

They still aren't reducing payload. 200 tons is intended for block 4, block 3 is 100 tons. 100 tons was the planned payloads for the starships I was looking at.
What you might be missing is that a "refueler" starship isn't necessarily restricted to just its payload capacity for fuel transfer. It could be deliberately redesigned for holding more fuel more efficiently, so when I looked it up, the plan is 8 launches. Not to mention that maybe Starship doesn't need the full 1600 tons for a moon mission. Right now, I'm seeing estimates of 8-10, though higher is possible of course. It's active development, things could change. Musk said it could be as few as four, but I tend to discount him.

Looking, it's around 6 km/s of delta-v to land on the moon from LEO. It should have right around 6 km/s when fully loaded (100 tons). So a full fuel load would be mandated. But they're also figuring on the lunar starship having some fuel on board after launch, and tanker starships being able to move ~150 tons per launch.

16 flights would be a worst case scenario.

Looking at figures for SLS for deliveries to LEO vs TLI, you're looking at needing ~60-70% of the payload to LEO to be propellant for TLI. In an ideal sense, around 50% might work, but 55% is probably the realistic minimum.