No LES on Starship. The goal is to get to airliner-levels of reliability.

I personally do believe that space vehicles can get to airliner-levels of reliability. But, it will take 40+ years from the time that people start trying, just like it did with airliners. I have high hopes, but low expectations, that Starship will be able to get that type of safety record. The next vehicle, though, just might.

It's all beginning to make sense. First the surveillance, now this.

Welcome to Airstrip One.

I recently spoke with a company who wants devs that have experience with Nuxt.js. Nuxt.js is - get this - a framework for Vue.js. Do you know what Vue.js is?

I think its Perl.

Interesting, thank you. I'm so glad that the compilers that I write against have published specs, and we don't have to sift through near-infinite previous cases to understand how our own intentions will be parsed!

I see, thank you. The fluids example makes perfect sense.

The term "ejusdem generis" seems to mean "same type". Though I cannot find a similar term in lists of our legal terms, at least now I have a list of the most important legal terms in our system. I'll be sure to be familiar with them. Thank you!

Could you please elaborate why? I am not a lawyer, but a layman who feels that it is very important for the layman to understand the legal system under which he is expected to operate.

Thank you, this is very informative and important. What is that legal principal called, please, so that I might see if it exists in my own jurisdiction?

The best time to launch an interstellar probe is 2000 years ago. The second-best time is today.

Seriously, though, we still study doctrines that were developed 2000 years ago, so this time period is not outside the realm of keeping human interest. People may not necessarily forget that the probe is out there while those 2000 years go by.

In fact, society will likely crumble and be rebuilt in those intervening years, as has happened multiple times in the preceding 2000 years. The greater challenge than sending out the probe might be how to remind the humans 2000 years henceforth how to receive data from the probe. We could look to see how e.g. the Jews and the Church have preserved scripture for that long for ideas. I wonder if it would if fact turn into some faith after so long.

Don't mangle the quote. It has meaning, and that meaning has not changed even if some people have adopted the term and others are offended by it.

The planet is cooling off, sure. But seeing that there has been activity recently, as in the last 0.06% (2.5/4000) of the planet's existence, it is unlikely that was the absolute final never-going-to-happen-again event.

It seems that "no volcanic activity on Mars" would be misleading. The planet has been there for roughly 4000 million years. So evidence of an eruption occurring only 2.5 million years ago, which is within the timeframe of humans having already branched off from other primates, means that eruptions are now infrequent, but still occurring.

Is it really logical to think that the eruption 2.5 million years ago was the last one that will ever occur, just a blink ago in comparison to the 4000 million years the planet has been there? More likely, the eruptions are becoming less frequent and less catastrophic, but the long tail of activity is still very long.

I had to look this up. Yes, it's true. The NSF founded a study on gender in glaciological research but did not find the funds to maintain the Arecibo telescope.

Incorrect. The Boeing 737 airframe's flight characteristics and detailed aerodynamic properties are not public. I'll grant you that calling the design dynamically unstable may be (founded) speculation, but so would be calling it dynamically stable. In reality, the airframe is probably neutral when staying within design flight parameters.

And that is the problem. Gusts, drafts, wind sheer, all could bring an airplane closer and closer to the limits of the design parameters. And airplanes already have the tightest safety margins of any vehicle.

I'm interested in keeping flight the safest form of transportation ever devised. And that means not flying on aircraft that are "almost" dynamically unstable. I trust their FEM to design wings that won't fail because materials' properties are well known, and have a rigorous procurement and manufacturing path. But I'm far less willing to be lenient in aerodynamic properties.

Every member of the flying public ought to refuse to fly a 737max. The public should fly on dynamicly-stable airframes. Leave the dynamically-unstable airframes to the fighter jets and stealth bombers.

Especially when the consideration for making this airframe dynamically unstable was not maneuverability, nor reducing flight control surfaces for stealth, but rather to save money. No, I'll not let you fly my family on a dynamically unstable airframe to save you money.