Really? You think at this point SpaceX is just going to throw up its hands and say "never mind" on Starship? I'm trying to imagine why they would do that.

I think you're right. If he thought he knew anything - in either direction - he'd be all in. Instead he's just throwing his hands up.

1280x800 is noticeably blurry, especially at 10.5" or whatever it was. For 7 or 8" yes it's just fine.

But it's a great song, even if the story line is a big improbable now.

He used to win these market timing games because no one was paying attention to huge short positions. You could quietly bet against a company, or, better yet, you could quietly amass a short position and then release stunning negative news that you had uncovered and watch the stock price tank.

These days it is more likely that online investors will notice a large short, and drive the price of the stock up until the person holding the short gets margin called and loses all of their money. The shorters then provide the liquidity you need to get out of the position. There used to be good money in shorting terrible companies, but in an age where hordes of armchair investors can drive the price of GameStop to the moon that strategy is just too risky.

Too bad Rush didn't know that EVs can out-accelerate any ICE sports car of that era by a huge margin despite weighing 50% more, and even out-accelerate any current ICE vehicle quite handily. Outside of maybe super cars, any sports car of that era would feel pretty anemic to modern drivers. Corvette in 1981 could do 0-60 in 8 seconds and for a time was considered America's fastest car. Today my SUV with a Pentastar can do it in about 7.5. California drivers would think anything under 10 seconds is unsafe. The difference is torque, though. My pentastar downshifts at the slightest hint of a hill, whereas the 80s sports car wouldn't even notice.

Also, the only realistic way to create a true "unintended acceleration" without pedal misapplication is something getting stuck in the pedal or the pedal getting stuck down, which is not actually a subtle thing (again, these things have happened, but they're dwarfed by how often people hit the wrong pedal). Just sensor readings alone don't cut it. As a general rule, pedals have multiple sensors reading the pedal position (typically 2-3). They have to agree with each other, or the target acceleration is set to zero. A sensor failure doesn't cut it. Also, Hall-effect sensors are highly reliable.

Oh, and there's one more "failure mechanism" which should be mentioned, which is: creep. Some EVs are set to creep or have creep modes, to mimic how an ICE vehicle creeps forward when one lifts their foot off the brakes. If someone forgets they have this on, it can lead to "unintended acceleration" reports. There have been cases where for example the driver gets in an accident, but not intense enough to trigger the accident sensors, and the car keeps "trying to drive" after the accident (aka, creep is engaged). People really should not engage creep mode, IMHO - the fact that ICEs creep forward is a bug, not a feature.

All the person in these "runaways" had to do was lift their foot off the accelerator. Or even leave their foot on the accelerator and just press the brakes, as the brakes can overpower the motor (think of how fast you accelerate when you slam on the pedal at highway speeds vs. how fast you slow down when you slam on the brakes).

Regulatory agencies the world over are constantly getting reports of "runaway unintended acceleration". Nearly every time they investigate, the person mixed up the pedal and the brake. When the car starts accelerating, in their panic they push said "brake" (actually the pedal) harder, and keep pushing it to the floor trying to stop the car. In their panic, people almost never reevaluate whether they're actually pushing the right pedal. It's particularly common among the elderly and the inebriated, and represents 16 thousand crashes per year in the US alone.

If your car starts accelerating when you're "braking", get out of your panic, lift your foot up, then make sure you *actually* put it on the brake, and you'll be fine.

This is the first time I've ever heard Eiríkr "The Red" (TH)orvaldsson referred to as "a shipping marketer" ;)

1) 1850-1900 is not "The Little Ice Age"
2) The Little Ice Age was not global, while you're talking about global climate reconstructions. The planet as a whole was not cold in the Little Ice Age.
3) You're talking about the basis of a particular climate target, not what the science is built on.
4) The mid 1800s is around when we started getting reasonably good regular quasi-global ground climate measurements, hence it's nice for establishing a target. That's why HADCRUT, which is based on historic measurements, starts in 1850. The first version of HADCRUT started in 1881 when the data was even better, but as more old data was recovered and digitized, it was extended to 1850. You can go further back, but you not only lose reading quality, but also are more confised to mainly regional records (Europe).
5) 1850-1900 was not a global cold period.

There's not some sort of conspiracy theory. The target is based on relative to when we have actual comparative data, and variations in modern preindustrial levels are a few tenths of a degree, not "several degrees" as per climate targets.

Absolutely true. And not troll, mods.

By the way I no longer sure how meta moderation is supposed to work. It used to be quite simple but now I'm not quite sure what they want me to do.

I'd say the vast majority of people are in #2, and not because they want to be necessarily. When you're holding down two jobs to feed the family, whatever it takes to get to work trumps the other things you could do to help reduce CO2 emissions.

I used to follow Chris as he does draw attention to things the CCP would rather we didn't know about. But when he started believing Trump will save us from China I was done. Besides that, a lot of talk about China's imminent destruction is wishful thinking and just a touch arrogant. Our own current form of capitalism isn't working so well either anymore. The CCP will fall sooner or later, I have no doubt, and for many of the reasons Chris talks about. But our western socioeconomic systems are just as likely to fail also in that same time frame.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of very smart, hard-working Chinese that are building some pretty good cars, even if they have too many of them. Ford's CEO drove a Chinese EV daily for months and he was impressed and said publicly we're way behind. Of course he only cares about making luxury cars and not affordable cars, so we're screwed either way.

My only guess is drugs.

When they say "pre-industrial levels", when do you think they mean? The 19th century (even though the industrial revolution was well underway), usually 1890 specifically.

What year is used depends entirely on the study. Some start at the advent of satellite measurements, some at the advent of modern ground-based measurements, some with the era of semi-reliable ground-based measurements, some incorporate further back with more fragmentary measurements, and others use proxies - some recent proxies from 200, 300, 400 etc years ago, others thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds, millions of years ago or more. There is no single timeframe that is examined. Numerous studies evaluate each different source, and the different proxies are commonly plotted out relative to each other.