"Alexa, this is our new family member, GPT Live. You both have a lot in common, so I hope you'll get along. I have to run some errands, so I'll leave you two to get acquainted."

[several hours later...?]

No, you're not the only one. Those two sentences definitely are seemingly contradictory. They're in TFA also, with no additional explanation.

I'll guess the author meant the sugar was detected in a region of the sky in the same direction (not location) as Voyager.

It's worth a percent or two more than it was in May. Does that seem severe? Maybe what happened in between was the weird bit.

Blah blah blah assumption, blah. ACs are copy/paste services.

The point is that America did not get all the "good stuff" as the AC(s) above claimed. It's irrelevant whether any Muslim countries got any of it.

The total for both of us was over $1000. And that included markups from middlemen.

I have no problem with the artists and their support crew getting paid well. I recognize that costs have gone up significantly since the days I spoke of, and the revenue from recordings is not what it used to be.

Even so, I object to gouging from middlemen, because they add little to no value to the marketplace, and yet take so much compensation for their involvement in it. Be gone with them.

Agreed: ticket prices are insane. I went to see Cold Play with a family member a few years back. Altogether, the tickets were over $1000, for modest seats at the opposite end of the stadium.

This will continue until consumers fight back. But I'm not sure whether they have the will. People still want to see their favorite bands in concert. And pipsqueak class-action lawsuits for $5M won't do a damn thing.

I think it's time for governments to address the problem. The days of middlemen gouging concertgoers should come to an end.

Ironically, there was a time when bands toured at a loss, in order to promote album sales. I remember those days, and used to think it would be a good thing if musicians went back to earning their living by performing instead of recording. But I didn't envision the current hot mess.

There are other ways to define "good stuff" besides wealth and military prowess. For example: happiness, safety from crime, quality of life, livability of cities and other municipal areas, access to education and health care, security in a person's senior years, and so on. It's no secret that the USA has not scored nearly as highly as other countries in those areas.

I suspect GP's point is that every malware blocker in every browser is likely to treat this kind of script as hostile, except for Chrome because Google are currently nerfing the ability for blockers to intercept hostile scripts in one of the most blatantly user-hostile changes they've ever made.

If Apple play along with Safari then every other browser and its malware blocking plugins are about to be toast in a huge retrograde step for Internet privacy. But not even Cloudflare is going to get away with blocking every iOS device if Apple continues to allow blockers to intercept this kind of script.

Did anyone mention recently that simultaneously controlling both the most popular web browser and several of the most popular ad-supported web properties might be a little anticompetitive, and that it's about time that Google was broken up? It's probably time for that drum to start beating a bit louder again.

I'd say it depends on what takes its place.

The non-Fox-News viewpoints of CNN seem to me to be worth preserving. And it's doubtful they would be if Paramount takes over Warner's portfolio, which includes CNN.

Look at what happened to CBS, in particular 60 Minutes, when the Ellisons' Skydance Media took over. One of the most venerable investigative-journalism shows in history has been run into the gutter.

It might happen, but I'm not sure you can say it was Trump's judgement that got us there. Seems to me he acts in self-interest almost exclusively, except for his kids and close friends. And even then it seems transactional. If it benefits someone else as well, that's a collateral effect.

"America First" has been his rallying cry, but by word and deed he seems to think "Trump first."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Even the modern supermarket was a tool in American anti-Soviet propaganda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There's no need to use the same recovery system for every stage either. That includes the space-based ones. SpaceX's plans for Starship are really based on their goal of going to Mars the first time, and that might work with some tweaks for a few trips to the moon too. The design of the super heavy booster is dictated by the need to refuel Starship in orbit.

The net is more efficient for the first stage and probably a second stage as well. Landing on the moon is best done with a lander designed for that, and if you're serious about regular tirps the transit in between would be best in a space-only vehicle. Eventually you're going to want to build a return booster that runs on stuff you make on the moon too.

I doubt the Chinese will use a reusable booster at all for their first few moon trips, just like the Artemis astronauts aren't going to be launching on Starship.

As I said in other threads here, throwing money at the problem is not enough. You need to overcome fear and encourage students to pursue studies in STEM fields. Many don't, out of a perception that STEM courses are "too hard" even though they may be able to perform well in them.

Raising salaries may not be enough, that's my point. Salaries for STEM jobs are already above-average, and yet young people are scared of pursuing STEM degrees though they might be qualified to pursue them. It takes encouragement, not just money.