I searched and searched the comments trying to find your criticism of Mr Obama building "camps for undesirables" (or even the cages for children). Could you link those for me to show you're consistently about human rights and not just a tendentious hypocrite?

Except... basically all the warming already is done. Further increases in CO2 basically don't contribute to warming.

#followthescience

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.030...

Jesus.
You need medication.

Probably not great news that someone further up the Kardashev scale remains a fan of double tap strikes.

My suspicion is that they are probably in the clear. the USB PD spec includes 'vendor-defined messages'; both 'structured VDMs' that are standardized and 'unstructured VDMs' that are basically whatever the implementer feels like. This obviously doesn't prove that Nintendo are in full compliance with what the USB-IF really wants the USB trademarks applied to; but(along with the reports that it plays just fine with 3rd party chargers) it looks a lot more like a basically-compliant-minus-any-bugs-or-compatibility-hacks USB PD implementation that just doesn't mention DP alt mode unless it likes the unstructured VDM chatter. Dick move; but one you could do in full standards compliance.

Sounds like they are acting all pious over what is basically a workplace dispute over division of margins.

The outfits that do ransomware negotiations remain legal; because for some reason that's one area where nobody bats an eye at you doing business with transnational criminal syndicates; but they are basically just bagmen who take a cut of the deal for interacting with the disreputable ransomware guys for you. In this case, apparently one of the employees wanted a larger percentage of the cut than he was getting from his employer.

I suspect that what he did is some sort of crime in a way that what his employer does isn't; but it's the same business model; just with some disagreement over whether that guy gets a percentage directly as well or whether just the company does.

...basically, the earth should be warmer.

The bulk of its history it's been a great deal warmer, with higher levels of CO2.
https://earthscience.stackexch...

The fact is that that the deep carbon cycle is not at equilibrium, with more carbon coming out of the mantle (through volcanic activity) than carbon going back to the mantle (through subduction).
This is good, because at 150ppm CO2, vegetation fails and everything dies.
https://www.frontiersin.org/jo...

It occurs to me that this is a good use of massive solar plants. It wouldn't cost much to idle your oxygen-separation equipment when the sun isn't shining, so you wouldn't need much in the way of battery storage. Grid scale solar without battery backup in a sunny area (like south Texas) can cost as little as $0.03/kWh, which would give you a separation cost of $4.5 to $24 per ton of LOX. Obviously, if you were producing LOX at a scale needed to fuel a fleet of Starships, you'd work to get that towards the bottom of the scale -- so the LOX loadout for a ship could cost on the order of 3500 * 4.5 = $15,750. To launch 150 tons to orbit. Of course you still need methane.

Could you make "green" methane (i.e. without using fossil fuels) with a big solar farm, and what would that cost? You'd do it with the Sabatier reaction to combine CO2 and H2 to get CH4. To make a ton of CH4 you need 2.75 tons of CO2 and 0.5 tons of H2 (stochiometry, dawg). To get a ton of CO2 with direct air capture takes about 2000 kWh of electricity, so 5500 kWh for the CO2. At $0.03/kWh that's $165 for the CO2. However, producing the half-ton of H2 with electrolysis would take 25,000 kWh, so $750. This puts the raw materials cost of green CH4 at around $915. The Sabatier reaction would add a little more, call it $930 in all.

So... Starship could be entirely solar-powered at a cost of around 3500 * 4.5 + 1000 * 930 = ~$946k, assuming $.03/kWh, ignoring equipment and storage overhead. It turns out that the cost is utterly dominated by the cost of methane production; LOX is all but free. But the cost of solar will likely continue to go down so... fuel costs could indeed get really, really low, even with a zero-carbon strategy. Perhaps as low as $2/kg to LEO.

And you wonder why you got swept the last election? Dur..

Rapid Accelerated Disassembly?

Rapid Anomalous Disassembly?

Or did you mean R.U.D. (Rapid Unscheduled/Unplanned Disassembly)?

Starship burns methane, not RP1.

Between SuperHeavy and Starship, a fully-loaded stack needs 3500 tons of LOX and 1000 tons of CH4. So what do those cost?

Well, oxygen is easy to get from the atmosphere, so the cost of LOX is really just some equipment (which isn't terribly expensive to buy and maintain) plus electricity, and the cost ends up being dominated by the cost of electricity. It takes between 150 kWh and 800 kWh to separate and liquify a ton of oxygen, so if you're paying $0.10 per kWh, LOX costs $15-80 per ton. There are some other costs to handle and store it, so let's say $100/ton.

CH4 can be created many ways. The cheapest is probably to purify natural gas, which costs about $190 per ton (that site shows ~$5 per 1000 ft^3, and a ton is 38k ft^3). Add some costs for purification and cooling, so call it $250/ton.

3500 tons LOX * $100/ton + 1000 tons CH4 * 250/ton = $600k. Musk usually calls it $1M, which seems pretty reasonable, since they're probably not separating/purifiying it themselves and there transportation costs. 150 tons of payload to LEO with $1M worth of fuel means the fuel-only cost is $6.67/kg.

Nonsense. Our only experience with reusable orbital rockets is the space shuttle, which was an unsustainably-expensive and complex beast that was more refurbishable than reusable and had a payload one fifth of what Starship is designed for. It's all of the differences that aim to make Starship both reusable and cheap that make it hard. It's possible that it's just too ambitious, that we don't yet have the technology to make a cheap, fully-reusable (not refurbishable, reusable) orbital rocket with massive capacity. No one else has done it... no one else is even trying, that's how hard it is.

Failure is expected. If they managed to launch and land both Starship and SuperHeavy in less than a dozen test flights, that would be the surprise.

Eberhart seems like he may be falling for the hype himself. He says "What's happening now isn't innovation; it's aspiration masquerading as disruption..."; but fails to note the fairly profound differences in results between the orbital delivery guys and the moonshot guys; and how neatly that maps onto what is aspiration and what isn't.

Putting satellites into orbit is kind of mundane at this point, too common, too obviously useful; but it's sufficiently obviously useful that more or less anyone with nation-state aspirations wants to at least have a program that executes; and civilian and day-to-day operations want someone who executes but cheaper. And that exists. Going to the moon is cool, and it's a nice prestige project for when the gerontocracy needs to show that they still have it just like when they showed the commies what for; but it's unclear exactly what the point is or the stakes are beyond that. The customer presumably would like to actually land something on the moon, at some point, just to say that they did; but what they are buying is mostly aspiration on the cheap: We get to say that we have a lunar program for way less than Apollo money, you do some open-ended tinkering, honor satisfied.

He can talk about 'accountability'; but it seems like it's a fundamentally hard problem to actually sustain a lie about how serious you are, at an institutional level, in the long term. It's not like do-or-die projects are free of losers(especially because circumstances have a nasty habit of thrusting them on people whether they like it or not; rather than giving them the luxury of choosing whether or not to take on those stakes); but they tend to be animated by a sense of genuine urgency. Stuff that is, fundamentally, kind of optional, by contrast, tends to reflect that in bulk. Timmy Rockets may be genuinely more passionate about stir-welding than you've ever been about anything; but, like is cousin who is really passionate social worker, will soon discover that going to the moon and fighting poverty are open-ended projects we do because they sound nice, not because anyone who matters is actually committing to a deadline.

I can think of some niche cases where this might be useful(mostly HHD/SSD wear data; though bad actors have been able to tamper with those values without much difficulty); but overall this seems like throwing an awful lot of identifying data and a whole 'trust me bro' shadow subsystem at a problem that the data is unlikely to actually help all that much with.

This will be very good at fretting if the refurbisher swapped out RAM or mass storage; but it's not like onboard diagnostics are all that good at picking up the difference between a machine that has had a fairly hard life and now has somewhat dodgy ports and a bit of uncomfortable flex vs. one that sat on a dock most of its life and got unplugged only a handful of times; any any issue that the embedded diagnostics can pick up can also be picked up without any special recordkeeping by just running the diagnostics when you receive the device and verifying that it doesn't throw any errors out of the box.

If you've already got the trust me bro shadow subsystem I assume it's relatively cheap to propose having it keep more records; but I'm not really convinced of how much value is being added.

Facts hurt you little fella?