Why don't we just move the clocks 30 minutes and make it permanent? This seems like a no-brainer.

More immoral than the Taliban? I mean I know he and his DOGE goons went around shutting down parts of the US government but they did it by firing people, not shooting and beheading them.

Agreed - if they really wanted to get rid of the most hideously immoral acts they'd need to ban themselves. The problem is their warped sense of morality, not this ban.

I suspect it may be true if you look at the very high profile, top of the pile. However, these are clearly the exceptions and not the rule. How many people went to university only to drop out and found a company that failed or at least did not do anything like as well as Apple, Microsoft etc.? We do not know because nobody has ever heard of these people unless they failed spectacularly like Elizabeth Holmes.

I'd look at university (rather than college) as career insurance. Get a good degree in a useful discipline and you have a safety net that will make it much easier to get a decent job. Once you have that, go and follow any crazy, speculative ideas you may have to see if you can make them work. If you can then that's great and, if not, you have your degree as a safety net to fall back on to get a decent job.

Well how about bi-trimestrial?

it is what you want to say, not me obviously, stop lying.

Except for the windows that are entirely under the control of the cabin crew who will decide when you are allowed, or not allowed, to look out of them. If they would replace them with mechanical blinds or remove the ability for the cabin crew to be able to force them to go opaque I'd agree with you.

There are literally millions of people doing nothing today, what you are advocating here has already happened, why aren't you happy anyway, is it because it's never enough? AFAIC everyone who can work should be taking care of himself/herself, government must not steal from one to subsidize another, especially in the system basically designed for complete corruption (and it is designed for complete corruption).

It is up to everyone individually to survive on this planet, if there are too many people unable to survive then it's a self correcting issue - they will not survive.

I'm happy that the USB-A is being phased out. Mainly because there are still too many fancy over-beautified USB-A plugs that are (a) large and (b) block neighboring USB ports.

So far, this wasn't a problem with USB-C, since it's too small to be f*cked up by the marketing.

P.S. But I guess it's only matter of time before they find a way to screw over USB-C too. "Progress."

P.P.S. Let's not forget that some companies still insist on using "USB 2.0 Mini" connector. In the past we had to stack Serial<->PS2<->USB adapters for the mice and the keyboards. In future we might need to stack adapters to connect those few remaining USB-Whatever oddballs.

I agree, my point is that the reason it is neither reasonable nor cost effective is because of the huge dangers around launching large amounts of fissionable material to orbit. The technology is actually relatively simple and cheap, at least compared to a chemical rocket, and the cost of the fuel is also not an issue. The problem is getting the fuel to orbit without a risk of causing widespread nuclear contamination.

Yes, go back 75 years and you'll find a world far less risk averse than today's world - but that applied to governments and companies both. The question that's relevant is NASA vs private companies in today's world because the NASA of 75 years ago no longer exists.

The private sector may be more cost-adverse but it is far less risk-adverse. There is no way a government program would have been allowed to have as many failures as we've seen with Space-X's Spaceship.

The reason nuclear propulsion has not been adopted is because of the huge risks in launching large amounts of fissionable material to orbit. Even far smaller radio-thermal power generators (RTG), such as those used by the Cassini and Galileo missions, lead to significant precautions during launch. A nuclear rocket will require orders of magnitude more fissionable material than an RTG.

Nuclear rockets are nothing new but the reason they have not seen significant use is because first you have to launch them to orbit. Rockets have a not-insignificant chance of exploding or crashing during launch and when you have them loaded with lots of fissionable material the effect is like a dirty bomb that has a good chance of scattering highly toxic, radioactive debris over a large area.

I suspect we will not see nuclear rockets until we develop a fusion-based one because, unlike fission-based designs fusion uses light, non-toxic, stable isotopes as fuel and so is likely to be no more dangerous than current chemical rockets.

Yes, it does not seem to be written in the rules but it is what the driving instructors taught my kids and what they are tested on. I also got told that when I had to do a driver safety course for work! It is also what most people seem to do since, when I first arrived in Alberta I almost got into a few accidents entering roundabouts because someone indicating right actually wanted to turn left and exit! I now basically ignore indicators on Alberta roundabouts because they provide zero information about what the driver is about to do.

drone batteries have to be heated otherwise drones may not even take off, Ukrainian soldiers in the field use all sorts of ways to keep the batteries warm, for example chemical hand warmers are used for this.