Yeah, because when SpaceX loses equipment as they do a lot they just spin it as a valuable scientific learning experience and not a disaster at all, and the credulous press and even more credulous Elon fanboys on sites like Slashdot swallow it hole.

There's no research going on, because this isn't something you can address scientifically with any semblance of hope of getting it.

So what we have instead is modelling, aka "data science". It's essentially numerology pretending to use tools of science.

Why do I say that?

Science is about a specific process: you make a hypothesis, you set up a test of your hypothesis, you test it, find it true or not and based on that your hypothesis becomes a scientific theory or a rejected hypothesis.

"Data science" works in exact opposite way. It generates no hypothesis, instead if generates "how world should work according to our best guess" model. I.e. it starts with the outcome "this is how world should be, now let us pick the numbers to demonstrate it", rather than the premise "world may be this way, let's see if it's true". Then it proceeds to plug numbers, both guessed and real into the model. Then they see if the output, and begin adjusting the numbers to get the outputs they desire.

As a result, science doesn't care about scientist. Hypothesis is either repeatable or not. Modelling is all about the human. Which numbers have been selected, which left out, which numbers have been guessed, and what multipliers were assigned.

And that is why "environmental modelling" has been so hilariously wrong all the time. Remember all the "2020 is the time when all the models from 2000s claiming to predict what happens in 20 years had to be actually tested against reality, and they all ran hilariously hot compared to reality". That was IPCC's reckoning at the time.

Nothing meaningful has changed since then. Modelling is still "top tier climate science".

Nah, Mozilla has been naming things after things that already exist for years.

Remember Mozilla Phoenix? Mozilla Firebird?

https://www.mozillazine.org/fi...

If I had that kind of money I'd have stepped down long ago to live on a private South Pacific island with rum, hot tubs, and supermodels.

To me the hoops that smoothbrains will jump through to avoid IPv6 and stay on legacy IPv4, especially when hosting, is pathetic. NAT, port forwarding, tunnels, blah blah blah blah.

I have something like ~1.2 trillion times the number of routable addresses that the entire IPv4 space has. Not all are reachable, of course, just the services that need incoming access and they're each on their own isolated DMZ.

Forgot to add: if you enable IPv6, be sure to use the browser extension IPvFoo. It shows a small 4 or 6 in your URI bar to let you know what protocol you're connecting to. Once enabled, you'll see just how much stuff out there actually is IPv6.

Started the move about 18 months ago when I decided to get off my lazy ass. My ISP gives out a /56 prefix, so that lets me run 256 /64 subnets/VLANs in the house, currently there are ~10 in use. Everything get a GUA through SLAAC and I use RAs (Router Advertisements) to give ULAs to everything. Any external facing services get their own VLAN and /64 for the system(s) as needed. Firewall blocks all incoming as they usually do by default and I punch a hole for the external-facing systems. They can't reach back into the network, they only answer the phone. All the systems update DNS dynamically if the prefix or full address ever change.

I have an SSH bastion set up. In all this time there has not been a single SSH attempt from the internet. On IPv4 it was constant background noice.
For those legacy IPv4-only systems on the internet, I set up NAT64. I have an IoT VLAN and IoT 2.4 GHz wireless network that are only IPv4 because a lot of IoT network stacks are junk.

I'm still farting around with it, but man oh man, there's no way I'd go back to IPv4. It was one of the best moves I've done in ages.

We've gone from Nature discussing infinite genders and other "human is a socially constructed ubermensch" woke nonsense to this. "Yes humans are evolved, yes different groups evolve differently and yes that includes general intelligence".

I guess study was big enough, and muslim leading it was scary enough that wokescolds just couldn't torpedo this one as they did with the one in 2017.

The problem doesn't occur if you have huge pages enabled, which is a good idea for a database machine anyway, as running without huge pages has almost as much of an impact on Postgres performance as this regression does. So no need to way for postfix to ship the spinlock bug fix.

Yes, for European ethnic groups. There's a reason for this too. Africans in US don't volunteer to being medically experimented on for historic reasons nearly as much as europeans.

It's a lesser version of a large problem we have with medicine being more poorly suited for women than men. Because women have a much lower risk tolerance, and so they don't volunteer for medical experiments of treatments and medications either.

Those who volunteer are the ones who medicines and treatments are optimized for, and who's medical problem patters end up as medical benchmarks.

I.e. "geriatric pregnancy starts at 35".

Dear retard. These women can't have children via fucking. That's the starting point of the tragedy.

"Oh shit, here we go again".

No, normal groups do it via conquest. This whole "suicidal sympathy" nonsense, where parts of elites within your own group intentionally genocide the lower classes through importation of foreign conquerors is a fairly rare phenomenon.

Last documented time it happened was when Roman Empire collapsed.

It's about both. Women are now indoctrinated to "wait until career is solid", i.e. their 30s.

For some ethnic groups, that's the age when they can't have children. For others, it's age where they have severe problems having children.

Biologically, women are primed to start having children in early to mid teens (easiest birth in terms of complications, but low viability of fetus and baby size making it suboptimal). Optimal window is where ease of birth is going down, but still very high up, while viability of fetus and baby size converge on optimal. That's between 16 and 22 (depending on ethnic group). Everything past that is reduction in all three, and the curve's downward trajectory rapidly accelerates when geriatric pregnancy stage starts, ending at zero marker (sterility).

Women are the carriers of culture, meaning they enforce the norms. That's their biological role in our species. So when the norm is "do not have children until you have a solid career, be a boss babe so you can provide best possible life for your children", they prioritize career and shame women who don't. And then when they finally get set in life, they try to have a child.

Find out that they're not getting pregnant. Get to a doctor. Get tested. Find out they're well into geriatric pregnancy range. Get scared, harvest eggs (far too late, you want to harvest eggs when you're in your early 20s at the latest if fertility is your goal, and even then success rate is not great). Do the first round of IVF. Nothing. Second. Nothing. Go to the doctor again, and get reminded that deep into geriatric pregnancy means that even with IVF, chances are low.

Get desperate, depressed, often borderline suicidal. "I've lived my life the way all other women told me I'm supposed to live it, and now I find out that it was all a lie, a weapon they deployed against me to prevent me from having children so theirs don't have to compete with mine?"

That realization is for top 20%. The rest just get depressed and don't understand why reality doesn't bend to their socialization. That's the stereotypical millenial woman in her late 30s and early 40s, doing all the drugs and all the alcohol and all the SSRIs to just drown away her misery, and then complain on tiktok about everything.

But a lot of women can still have that one child with IVF, as long as they start in their thirties, and they're not of african descent.

"Let me show you how REAL monstrous people can get. Look at me. I will go as far as to claim that you should be grateful for being ethnically replaced".

Even the most genocidal muslims don't have this view of jews. You're morally more reprehensible than even the likes of Hamas. And you're admitting to it voluntarily, without being prompted.