Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:No. (Score 1) 159

The capacity of the government of a large jurisdiction like California, or more particularly the US, could bankrupt someone like Musk, so I say, bring it on. Within a decade Musk would have abandoned all efforts, or, even better, be stone cold broke (frankly billionaires shouldn't exist at all, and we should tax the living fuck out of them down to their last $200 million).

We're too afraid of these modern day Bond villains when we should be aiming every financial, and probably every real, cannon straight at them and putting them in a sense of mortal danger every minute of their waking lives, so that they literally piss themselves in terror at the though that "we the people" might decide to wipe them out for good.

Comment Re:Hard and expensive (Score 1) 159

It likely means demolishing a lot of existing houses and businesses to make room for the train

It doesn't. What it means is cutting through a lot of big parcels whose owners have big money, so they can be big impediments. There has to be a happier medium than this between respect for individual private property ownership and the needs of the many, but we are clearly uninterested in finding it in this country.

Comment Such BS (Score 5, Insightful) 79

Digging is expensive.
Nuclear hardware is expensive.
Getting an intact reactor into the bottom of a hole that deep will be prohibitively expensive and difficult.
Groundwater can go more than a mile deep.
If something breaks, repairs will be almost impossible and prohibitively expensive.

I can understand some of the arguments for nuclear. However, this is just sheer idiocy.

A less stupid version of this would be installing a nuclear plant deep in a decommissioned mine, perhaps one under a mountain. Still doesn't seem very smart, though.

Comment Re:Specs? What specs? (Score 1) 17

Exactly this, the "spec" is almost always a very rough draft that is largely written and consumed by people that want to feel like they contribute to the project even though they don't understand the customer or the developer situation that well. You might reference it a bit in your first offering and then ignore it as the stakeholder sees what the spec produces and realizes the spec wasn't really what they wanted when they see it live.

Once upon a time more weight was given to design, but the industry largely realized that all that very careful effort just became a liability of sunk cost fallacy when they realized the resultant output was not desired, but so much work had gone into the spec we don't want to change.

Nowadays it's a way that PMP minded folks feel like they are core technical contributors without learning to code. This is of course the target audience. Spoke to an executive that sincerely believes the only thing of irreplaceable value is his 'insight' and over 90% of his employees are going to be dismissed since he can just do it all himself. In practice his is the *first* job that could go to LLM, as all he ever says is either obvious stuff or just confidently wrong and his business decisions amount to "all we need is more customers and for them to pay more for it and we will be profitable"... Genius.

Slashdot Top Deals

Did you know that for the price of a 280-Z you can buy two Z-80's? -- P.J. Plauger

Working...