It doesn't solve a fundamental issue of style though. Is the government going to do this job 10 times? 20 times? A font exists and can be used, the question is do you want every product to look the same?
but when Musk does the exact same thing - he's an idiot and has no idea, according the lying legacy media......
Errr no. Musk hasn't done the same thing. The only thing he's been called out an idiot for are precisely the things he was doing that were idiotic. Many of those ideas have been reverted or in other ways found to be completely impractical by his own engineering teams.
No one called him an idiot because this first rockets failed, they called him an idiot for specific reasons, and the specific things he says (which largely have proven false especially in his timelines). Please don't show your overt fanboism like this in public, keep that shit for your bedroom.
who proposed Apple simply pull out of India, or criticised Apple for not following "local laws". Everyone seems to jump to some extreme end-point in every debate, completely forgetting that most such issues are sorted out one way or the other along the way.
Yes laws need to be obeyed, that doesn't mean you can't fight against them in the process, especially if you have the money to weather fines and start a legal battle in the process.
You say "China" but this is a private Chinese company. "China", as in the Chinese government, does have its own space programme that, like NASA, works with commercial partners. They are looking to put people on the moon around 2030, and on track to do it, but this company is working on low cost to Earth orbit payloads.
Microsoft's popular Arial font was created to have the exact same dimensions and spacing as Helvetica. Font designs and things like spacing aren't protected by copyright law, only the actual code that defines the fonts, the font file, is.
The Microsoft version renders nicely on screen, and be substituted for Helvetica in print, and was much cheaper than licencing Helvetica itself. Apple did later licence Helvetica, but it looks crap on screen when rendered using their mediocre font rendering code.
Anyway, there is an opportunity here for someone to make a very similar, metric compatible font, and sell it for $350/year.
They could send Dragon to the moon, but it would need a fair bit of development work. More fuel, longer term habitation. It will also need to transport the lander there, so will need some kind of adapter and some way to either launch with it attached, or to collect it in Earth orbit.
It's not impossible, but I wouldn't place any bets on who gets there first.
In the young groups I am around, Tattoos are considered passe', and not cool. As one young lady said, "In 40 years, we'll hear "Tattoos? Ewwww, my Grandma has them, they look gross" "
We don't need to guess and go out and talk to kids. The statistics can be looked up. Depending on studies GenZers are only about 10-20% behind Millenials. If you then look at the general distribution of *when* people get tattoos you can expect GenZ's percentage to increase further over time while Millennial's are unlikely to change from this point forward.
Anecdotes and soundbites are irrelevant.
The rest of us are allowed to have our opinions (and sometimes facts) about that.
Indeed, but when your opinions don't fit facts (such as the fact that 25% of millennials don't actually have a criminal record) just know you run the risk of having other people form the opinion that you're a judgmental arsehole.
You're funny, most people don't have tattoos. somewhat less than a third.
I'm not sure what your point is. My point is there's no significant differences between generations and Gen-Z also have plenty of tattoos. Is your point that 1/3rd of people is not a big number, and that 1/3rd of people have poor self-image? If so WOW.
My anecdote: The only people I know with tattoos are those with such good confidence in their self-image that they happily display their body as a canvas. Very much the opposite of what you say.
Before I hit submit I decided to see if there was any information as to your comment. Turns out this has been studied: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... and it turns out only 10% of tattooed people have body image problems. Doesn't really fit your view does it...
No why would I be triggered? I'm not a Gen-Zer, I just really like pointing out that you frequently say very stupid things.
That's insightful, what open source alternatives do you propose? There's hundreds for our alphabet, but there's fuck-all out there for Japanese / Chinese, many thanks to literally thousands of glyphs existing in the language.
Here's one character https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... just one of the several thousands which has more strokes than the entire Latin alphabet, Greek alphabet, including both lower case and upper case combined.
There's multiple orders of magnitude more complexity here with multiple orders of magnitude less demand for the work. It's just not a good target for open source.
Is it reasonable for a (chain of-) provider(s) to suddenly increase licensing costs? Surely the work has been done already.
To be clear it's not that they "increased" the cost, it's that they specifically eliminated a cheaper plan that the industry was relying on. Yes ultimately it's a distinction without a difference, but I really wonder why games specifically were getting a discount in the first place?
"LandSpace Could Become China's First Company To Land a Reusable Rocket"
"UPDATE: Chinese Reusable Booster Explodes During First Orbital Test"
I had a chuckle at how close together these two posts are on the Slashdot front page.
Sometimes they aren't even mistakes. A classic one is "Diet Water". In Japanese, the word "water", as in the English loan word that they have adopted, refers to flavoured health/energy drinks. They have a word for actual water, "mizu", as you might expect.
Google already has: https://fonts.google.com/
Not all made by Google, but all open source.
If you filter by language you can see that some languages are not very well covered.
What conspiracy? China has announced they plan to land humans "around 2030", and the progress they have shown on a lander suggests that they are on track for that. They have heavy lift rockets capable of performing the mission with lunar orbit rendezvous (the same as NASA is planning), and they have already soft landed probes and rovers on the moon. They have a history of sticking to their announced timescales, which tend to be conservative.
Therefore the question is if NASA can get there first. Starliner is floundering, SpaceX's Starship is ambitious and they have a lot of work to do (man rating, in-orbit refuelling, and likely an unmanned trip around the moon). Then Blue Origin or SpaceX need to demonstrate a working lander, and that likely means an automated landing and return to orbit before a crew can go. NASA also needs to demonstrate lunar orbit rendezvous for whatever craft they end up using too.
It's December 2025, so they probably have around 4-5 years maximum, although China may go even sooner.
"In the face of entropy and nothingness, you kind of have to pretend it's not there if you want to keep writing good code." -- Karl Lehenbauer
