I actually think that's the way to go. There needs to be a law about whether AI is allowed to learn from content on the same terms as a living individual, or not. Then there also need to be technical means to enact whatever policy is legislated, which is here this Cloudflare technology could fit in.

I wouldn't call gasoline tax a sin tax.

As far as actual sin taxes go, the people most addicted to cigarettes are also the poorest, with the least amount of support to quit smoking, and they will bear the brunt of this tax. It's easy to say "just quit" but much harder to do in practice. So increasing the sin tax is devastating to these people who are already coming at life with a disadvantage.

Whereas taxing electric vehicles is an arguably progressive tax. Just not sure how to best implement such a tax. Could be as part of registration. Or it could be a tax on the electricity used, but that would require special meters for home chargers.

I wouldn't say "from scratch." The Germans made a very significant investment in rocketry, and it's hard to argue we didn't exploit it, when Werner von Braun (a Nazi, and in fact officer in the SS) was the chief architect of the Saturn V.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history...

China is making progress. Between 2013 and 2022, particulate pollution in China declined by 41 percent. That is huge.

https://aqli.epic.uchicago.edu...

Nobody else but the prison system can set the price of calls to the prison system, so they're milking it. (Oddly this was also true when I lived in the dorms at college, before cellphones).

I don't think its' a matter of taking it easy on the prisoners, it's mostly a matter of not highway robbing their loved ones, who haven't done anything wrong.

ED: Looks like it's 24(!) hives per beehome, and they charge $2k delivery ($83/hive) plus $400/mo ($400/hive/yr) for maintenance.

Clearly not something of use to amateurs, and I'm not sure whether you can make that economics work out for professionals, either. I guess it depends on how truly independent it is, vs. your local labour costs.

There is little correlation between "presence or absence of pollution" (what a general term to begin with...) and CCD. There is a strong correlation with the presence / absence of varroa. And this system treats varroa.

I've been thinking about getting into beekeeping (I first need to increase the accessibility of my ravine where they'd be), and had been thinking about a sort of high tech solution, with electric blankets, heat-exchanging baffles, a flow hive, and maybe some mass and/or noise sensors for monitoring colony health. But this is WAY more high-tech than I envisioned, and honestly I'm scared to even look up the price ;)

The best correlation between the presence and absence of CCD is varroa. CCD is probably not single cause, but if you had to pick only one, varroa is that one.

And glyphosate is probably WAY down on the list. At least pick an insecticide as your culprit.

Not with far-UV (~222nm) you didn't.

Leaders aren't there out there e.g. building the rockets or doing the vast majority of the engineering. Musk doesn't get credit for that. But they do set the culture and direction for their companies. And in this regard, the "build quickly, launch quickly, fail quickly, learn quickly, and iterate quickly" culture developed for SpaceX happens to be very effective. Musk gets credit for instilling that. Another thing he should get credit for is the broad design strokes such as "focus on designs that are cheap enough that they can be mass produced, gaining you economies of scale and the ability to iterate quickly during testing, but are still capable of being reused" (this differs from the two previous predominant paradigms, either super-expensive low-volume reusables, or cheap high-volume disposables).

I don't like the guy, but absolutely, credit where it's due.

Except that Musk is allowed to show up at work or not whenever he feels like it, so he's a giant hypocrite who forces everyone else to do that which he himself is not willing to do.

I think a lot of people miss the fact that SpaceX engineers know very well that what they're doing might fail spectacularly, and that this is the cost of speed.

A random example: autogenous pressurization.

It's beneficial to have a rocket's engines pressurize the tanks themselves rather than to haul up pressurant tanks and a separate pressurant. But it's surprisingly tricky. For a methalox rocket, you ideally want hot methane injected into the methane tank, and hot oxygen into the oxygen tank. But hot oxygen is very difficult to work with in an engine, as it tends to eat your engine.

If you're still working on reliably producing hot oxygen, there is a hack available to you, but it's not pretty: just inject exhaust into the oxygen tank; after all, it's not combustible. BUT, it is water and carbon dioxide. Both can settle out as frosts or plated ices, and in the liquid, the water ice will float at the top, while the CO2 will form a snow at the bottom. Frosts / ice plating can block e.g. your RCS jets. The CO2 snow will kill your engines. You can put in filters around their intakes, but it'll clog your filters. You might try expanding the filters, and maybe that'll work for a while, but then you rotate the rocket, the snow rushes ti one side, and a bunch of engines die from clogging. You may put some big mesh plates across the whole tank to keep the snow off the bottom, but they can cause their own problems with fluid flow and still sometimes clog or let snow through during maneuvers. Etc.

So then comes the question: put Starship on hold while working on getting the engines to reliably produce hot oxygen, potentially for years, or forge ahead with a hack solution that you know has a reasonable chance of killing your rocket?

To SpaceX, the question is obvious. You cannot afford to give up years of critical flight data just to avoid some booms. The decision is immensely lopsided in favour of "put in the hack solutions and launch, while you work on the proper solutions". Because you learn SO much from every launch that can be used to evolve your design. And you also learn so much from every rocket that you build, whether you launch it or not, so you might as well launch it.

To be clear, you don't want to lose rockets due to doing stupid things. Like, for example, if it turns out that some SpaceX engineer installed the wrong COPV and caused the recent pad explosion**, basically the only thing they would learn from that is "have tighter controls on your COPV processes", which isn't at all worth the cost of the explosion. But in general, if you launch and it clears the pad, you're getting good, important data from it, it's worth it even if it blows up seconds later, and it's on to the next evolved version of the rocket in your production sequence with both production- and flight lessons learned.

** It's clear that the recent explosion was from a COPV failure, but it's unclear why. Some claimed leaks state that a COPV may have been coded to a higher pressure than it actually was during production, so when they scanned it it checked out as being the right tank, but actually was not designed to handle the needed pressures. But I'll wait for official confirmation on this. SpaceX only makes some of their COPVs, usually not the smaller ones - ones that have washed up ashore were made by Luxfer. So this could be a supplier problem, like the strut failure on a 2015 Falcon flight. But again, too early to say.

"What am I missing?"

That the author of this article is an idiot.

Yes, humans went to the moon in the 1960s. It also consumed a huge chunk of the federal budget. Adjusting for inflation by NASA's NNSI inflation index, the entire Lunar program cost $288,1B. If the US were to prioritize a project to the same degree today as then, accounting for GDP growth in inflation-adjusted terms, it would be $702,3B. NASA's annual budget is around $25B.

The cost of access to space today is a tiny fraction of what it used to be, when accounting for inflation. And keeps pushing lower. No, it's not "easy", but it absolutely is being done.

The rumor I've heard from those who work at Apple or have worked at Apple is that Apple bit way, way too hard into the rotten apple which was/is DEI. They promoted and hired people completely unfit for the jobs simply because or their DEI checkmark credentials. This has had disastrous impact on "softer" disciplines specifically, like project/program management, release management, and so on - nevermind more creative/artistic disciplines.

You can see this in how milquetoast a lot of their later software releases have been, and how they fall short of being meaningful improvements or something a person would even be able to conceptualize a use for - like Apple Intelligence. The message/notification summaries are nice, yes - but beyond that, it's a nothingburger. iPhone Mirroring? Slow and inconsistent (while the more useful clipboard sharing feature is... intermittently broken, it seems.) Desktop widgets? Who even looks at their desktop?

So, I'd not be surprised if the result is this. The internal projects have been stagnant or making negative progress to useless people of one stripe or color, and they can't simply get rid of them outright. But they still need to deliver something for shareholders, so absent a new hardware release they need something to show for the money spent on fancy offices.

Depends on whether you buy video games for video game gameplay or high polygon ray traced titties.