> While caves seem a naturally ideal way to jump start a lunar base, it's a very dangerous notion.

It's all very dangerous. It's less dangerous than other options. Over time, any exposed structure or manually excavated void are subject to deterioration. Using a small section of a moon lava tunnel is reasonable, given the current state of knowledge regarding terrestrial lava tunnel stability. Humanity does have some extensive experience encountering and qualifying lava tunnels. It's not necessary to use the whole tunnel, nor is a singular enclosure a likely approach, since the habitat will have to be a modular installation over time. I assume best-effort. If part of the tunnel failed, the worst being an entrance that has no local branching or manual tunneling to open another entrance, you could get trapped...unironically in an enclosure designed to fare well under the condition of being sealed in (granted, a for a finite time).

> Far, far better to excavate, build a known, designed structure, then bury it in regolith.

"better" here implies some set of subjective values. Economically? It's more expensive...for a number of reasons, the least of which is the excavation and inability to expand uniformly. Politically? It's going to take longer. First mover is the defacto expert, until there is an alternative. You can go on and on. Most importantly, the tested capability limits and recognized needs, will enable following projects to be built for longer-term habitation.

> So would increasing the number of relationships permitted in your account, because there are a lot of knobs with IDs to block, too.

I cannot agree enough. Over 20 years later, I have to prune my lists of inactives to allow for the new batch of sockpuppets and trolls from the, increasingly rare, free account, signups.

This story is in violation of Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

It is not, despite the hilariously misplaced griping.

The first Shazam was great because it presented the realistic infantile ego that superheroes would likely have (and some young viewers would like to imagine) and made the characterization endearing. Almost every hollywood story includes moral or physical victories, in the end. Not sure how you can enjoy movies at all if you are trying to avoid predictability.

> I feel that people are getting worse at social interaction and are falling out of practice in reading subtle cues in human-to-human communication

Luckily, this is a skill that's mostly genetic so it doesn't matter and certainly doesn't explain why media has gotten worse at relying on it.

Not sure how this thought
which is obviously wrong
got a +mod. Slashdot.

> High prices for sundries and cost of gas aside, the dislike of gas stations is probably due to
*cut a bunch of marginal reasons nobody thinks about*

Much more likely it's simply an inaccurate analysis (intentionally or not).

The Star Trek mobile game is pretty popular. This is still a ridiculous overpayment, which points to either misdirection during the sale or as a cover for some other transaction between associated parties.

> This propaganda, this LIE had one purpose, which was to try and negate the actual worst drought in over a 1000 years, which was during the 1930s, "The Dust Bowl."

I have a doubt as to what you are getting at, since nobody can negate the historical facts.

> Were in CA where I live, we get up to 60" inches of rainfall on an average season

Where you live isn't really relevant. Southern California, is.

https://www.laalmanac.com/imag...

The parent reads like a counterfactual produced by a tobacco exec.

> When we make highly-desired commodities illegal, we instantly create black markets.

Same as when you heavily tax them (eg Africa)

> History has shown us the folly of trying to beat back the black markets through law enforcement:

That is not the lesson, as it's been effective for all manner of things over history, even today. The most recent failures (US prohibition and failed drug wars) is a matter of popular support. You can't protect a population from behavior the population performs and implicitly condones. Being an island, it's likely this will be very effective in NZ and provide a template for other locales. Unfortunately, the arguments are irrelevant. It's done and it wont be obvious how effective it is for another 40 years.

P.S. I do expect cigars to become the dejour black market item.

> When it’s hard to find employees, perks need to be dangled to attract workers.

All markets that have limited pools of talent, regardless of what can be offered. There is a cost-benefit balance and most companies can't/won't outbid without constraint. Companies will continue to hire wherever they can, for what they need. This was true, pre-pandemic. Remember outsourcing?

> As the looming recession next year lumbers forward, expect almost all companies to return to in office only/mostly paradigms.

I think this is not a well-reasoned prediction. A recession will continue to push workers toward more remote locales. Ironically, the most valuable perk is wfh. What other perks are there, that a developer might consider? A gym membership to a gym you didn't pick? Free lunch fridays? There is currently difficulty hiring with salary/bonus schedules, which are inconsistently valued as a replacement for wfh, by hire-prospects. Everyone's situation is different and there's plenty of remote jobs available. I expect that offices will continue to ramp down for the foreseeable future until it's standard to have satellite locations and/or a singular HQ campus.

> I hate to tell you, but pretty much every research paper is written by a grad student.

The vast majority of grad student papers aren't impactful in any way, because they aren't the final thesis. The PHD thesis is the purpose of the university, which requires an addition to the body of human knowledge to be granted the PHD. People confuse papers that are PHD findings with run-of-the-mill papers that may not even relate to the student's focus of study.

> Objecting based on the fact that it's written by a PhD student is not only an appeal to authority, but also a silly one

The fact that this is being purported as breaking news, is the same behavior. Pointing out that it's a random paper by a student seems to fit as a counterfactual contextualization.

This show is super-progressive, for specific groups. I'm not sure who, exactly, but it includes LGBTQ+ interests and I cannot imagine a storyline that alienates them completely coming to light. Netflix just doesn't want to do that.

The first episode is quite interesting and the production quality is maintained ep to ep, which is good. The over-representation of LGBTQ+ characters was rather daring at the time of the writing and it seems consciously gratuitous now. The characters aren't bad, but do seem either shallow or less than their characterization by others, at times for no reason. ie Inexplicably, an immortal god thinks a century is a long time? This type of inconsistency is passe and seems like a weak way to draw out a straightforward storyline. My wife and I have certainly watched inferior productions, but could not finish this first season. The episodes felts like a half-step above the lazy and boorish scenes in American Gods, which I think is a fair comparison (also Neil Gaiman sourced). This doesn't diminish NG's strengths as a writer, as it's a different medium with lots influences combined, but it doesn't bode well for the show.

*Spoiler Stuffs below*

The voice of the raven was a poor choice that feels a lot like a studio move. Patton Oswald's voice is grating (especially with the audio balance set so high), which at odds with the mood and characters. The fact he is used as repetitive exposition leaves the show feeling shallow, with little need to think there are details left for examination. There are fun bits to re-examine that are embedded I'm sure...like the implication that Truth is the counter to Dreams, that Morningstar somehow missed, so it's not completely vapid. Too little. Some things are too much. Did this whole diner-ruby-bit need to take up an episode? Don't build up characters and discard them in moments, Walking Dead style. That makes a show less watchable to have throwaway episodes. We started to tire and quit watching for good during ep 7.

> Don't treat it like it's his piggy bank, it's disingenuous.

I'm certainly being honest about the world, insofar as the Gates Foundation board is full of Gates (and/or Gates Foundation)-funded organizations like Tom Tierney, etc. I think it's more like a piggy bank than you're implying, so I'm not being disingenuous. In theory the law constrains reality, in practice it does not. You seem to think the opposite. That's delusional, but I'm sure it's a nicer reality. Good luck.

> Another moron that doesn't understand how tax deductions work

*Sigh*
You are the prime example of a useful idiot. Not only does it work that way, it's even worse.

It's HIS foundation. He gets the tax benefits AND gets to use the money anyway.

https://privatebankingconcepts...

Same as the Clinton Foundation. The only wastage is in the overhead of the foundation.

Why is this on slashdot? A couple reasons are obvious. When I was born, computers were still room-sized and communication was by phone. Now children are growing up with a different digital landscape. Tracking the way that young people perceive the world and act upon it, is difficult for previous generations to fully grasp. Observing the preparation and final thoughts of a mediocre millenial digital celebrity (a celebrity nonetheless, regardless of the domain), is a doorway into that mental state.

This is a practical answer to interesting thought experiments, given the resources of a modern age. If you had a loyal audience, what (if anything) would you say to them posthumously? how would you distribute it? when would you decide to produce this content or how might you tragically fail to accomplish what you wanted to?

Why is this on slashdot? You're being a lazy thinker, as usual.