They want their headline back

To the legislator(s) complaining about the BLM decision, claiming that this is hyporticial of the current presidential administration and making other complaints, I ask: Produce your history of bills proposed and voted on that would have substative effect on curtailing global warming. As global warming is a global phenomenon, show us that you are a champion of the health and wellbeing of the global population, and not just your constituants who happen to include the businesses holding mineral rights in the area affected by the BLM decision.

Further, stop portraying every legislative and regulatory decision as if though there are only two mutually exclusive options, and if you're not supporting one option then you must absolutely be against it. NASA's research and earth observation efforts, which in part depend on calibration of the sattelites that perform those observations, is one facet of combatting climate change. Mining minerals useful for clean(er) energy techologies is another facet. No one facet is the silver bullet in this fight.

To the businesses holding mineral rights in the area affected by the BLM decision, I ask: Stop being so greedy. It's telling that they complain that the (according to the AP article) 30% of land withdrawn contains 60% of the value. And it's telling that they hadn't (according to the AP article) submitted any plans to actually mine this area when NASA made the decision - now all of a sudden they're concerned. Why don't then go mine the 60% of the land they still have access to, and make some money, as opposed to sitting around complaining about the decision and making no money.

According to the AP article, BLM concluded "No other location in the United States is suitable for this purpose". As there are likely other places to mine lithium (or for that matter other minerals that are or may be useful in implementing technologies that reduce or even turn back the effects of climate change) within the US, I agree that the uniqueness of this land for the purpose NASA uses it should be given priority over other uses.

To both legislator(s) and businesses opposing this move, I trot out one of my favorite quotes from a Heinlein work (The Past Through Tomorrow, 1967):

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."

Even assuming that there were signs of trouble prior to the too-fast-to-perceive implosion, I can imagine that right up to the end the CEO was diluding himself into thinking it would all be OK and what they were experiencing were only minor technical problems.

The regretable thing here is he took an honor guard with him when he died. He got to take the easy way out. He doesn't have to continue living after the incident, dealing with the guilt, anxiety and any other emotions caused by knowing he was ultimately responsible for killing people.

The silver lining here is that the company will cease to do business, and hopefully others with an idea to operating in a similar fashion will be dissuaded from doing so, and so hopefully no more lives will be lost due to carelessness of this manner.

The Starliner does not use a pure (or even rich) oxygen atmosphere. It uses "cabin pressure of 96.5 kPa (14.0 psia) to 102.7 kPa (14.9 psia), ppO2 of 19.4 kPa (2.82 psia) to 22.7 kPa (3.30 psia), ppCO2 not to exceed 4 mmHg" in accordance with "ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements Document The ISS Crew Transportation and Services Requirements Document (CCT-REQ-1130)". CTS craft have fo conform to the ISS atmosphere composition, which is earth-normal (sea level) pressure and oxygen/nitrogen mix.

Garbage in... Garbage out still applies to AI.

I thought it only fair that Chat GPT get a chance to chime in:

ChatGPT
The concerns raised by industry leaders in the article regarding the potential risks of artificial intelligence are indeed important and have been discussed by experts in the field. It is crucial to recognize that as AI technology continues to advance, there is a need for responsible development and deployment to mitigate potential negative consequences.

The statement from the Center for AI Safety highlights the belief that the risk of extinction posed by AI should be considered a global priority, comparable to other large-scale societal risks such as pandemics and nuclear wars. By acknowledging the potential risks at this level, industry leaders are emphasizing the importance of taking proactive measures to ensure the safe and ethical use of AI.

The inclusion of prominent executives, researchers, and engineers from leading AI companies, as well as the "godfathers" of modern AI, indicates a widespread recognition of the need to address these concerns. Their collective expertise and influence can contribute to shaping policies, guidelines, and practices that prioritize the responsible development, deployment, and governance of AI systems.

The article also mentions specific concerns related to recent advancements in large language models, like ChatGPT, which have raised fears regarding the spread of misinformation, propaganda, and potential job displacement. These concerns are valid and require careful attention to ensure that AI systems are developed and used in a manner that aligns with societal values, preserves human well-being, and addresses potential negative impacts.

In response to these concerns, it is essential for stakeholders in the AI community to actively collaborate with policymakers, ethicists, and the public to establish robust frameworks for AI governance. This includes considerations such as transparency, accountability, fairness, and the incorporation of ethical principles into AI development and deployment processes.

While the potential risks associated with AI are a legitimate cause for concern, it is important to note that AI also presents significant opportunities for societal benefit. Striking the right balance between innovation and safety will require ongoing dialogue, research, and collaboration among all stakeholders to ensure the development and deployment of AI technology that serves humanity's best interests.

In other words, "cloud" company uses another "cloud" company to host its code and between the two of 'em couldn't keep the data out of unauthorized hands.

Gee, if only the "cloud" security company had setup an internal/self-hosted/on-prem code versioning repository and protected access to it with their own products/services (which they claim are super secure and the bees-knees), instead of hosting it with another "cloud" company...

Yeeeeah... no sympathy here.

Land is far too valuable to use up around population centers or to put solar and transmission on too many agricultural lands. So far the economics of solar have only made sense on lands that are of marginal value.

There is no meaningful science being done there. So yes, pull the plug.

Fusion R&D should be squarely focused on engineering of a power plant. The science of fusion reactions is already well studied and well modeled. What we need is machines that can sustain a fusion reaction to produce net electricity

Land and transmission is a huge cost factor of solar. Not to mention energy storage costs. Fusion can be a drop in replacement for a power station on the existing grid. Fusion is going to be 60% to 80% of electricity production.

The open secret is that SLS is totally a dead man walking. Even if Starship takes a few launches to be successful, then SLS will be on the chopping block in 2014

Also you could say that this all eventually led to SpaceX success. Musk didn't pull reusable rockets out of his hat... He just combined drive, technology competency and business sense to make it happen.

Just buy more rockets and spend the money actually doing more stuff.

Thanks... Now let's launch Starship please.

The universe in which people have differing opinions and are free to express them.