Citation provided in Subject, but I actually wonder about the answer. Hain't seen his hide nor hair lately.

Should I repeat part of the rant about "might != right"? Might does make a winner sometimes, but "right" is a moral dimension. "Someone had to win" is part of the gambling story elsewhere on Slashdot?

Solar, wind, nuclear = plenty of spare carbon free energy. The idea of storing nuclear power came from the fact that the nukes of the time were by far the most economical in cost per MW when ran at max output.

Not disagreeing, but mostly feeling a need to clarify an aspect I didn't mention.

As regards your reply, I actually heard that part of the reason Artemis was able to go forward was that the YOB signed another Executive Order. On those occasions when the puppet does something that appears good I remain suspicious, but I suspect most of those lucky breaks could be traced back to that female chief of staff. She seems relatively sane compared to the rest of 'em and I can imagine her appealing to "your legacy, Your Highness" to pull his strings in less harmful directions. Occasionally.

The thing I forgot to mention was that I support the general idea of lunar exploration, but right now I think the best step forward would be remotely operated robots. For the cost of this mission they could have tried to build a major robot base on the moon. I think they should actually be stupid robots, but operated from earth. The round-trip delay is only about 3 seconds, so I think it would be feasible to leave almost all the intelligence on the earth side. (Or am I presuming too much about local intelligence?) I think it might even be just within the scope of current technology to build a robotic factory on the moon, going beyond the pure research aspects.

I'm Dutch, our only option for hydro is to dam off part of the North sea, pump out water, then let the water flow back in through turbines. It's probably not cost-effective. This is a variation on the old Lievense Plan (which had a large basin filled with pumps, and drained through turbines). Interestingly, the original plan was not just for storing cheap wind power, but also for storing and balancing cheap nuclear power.
Note that some nuclear power plants can run load-following (for instance some of the French ones).

I blame the weak FP?

Why did someone try to censor that comment? Not the strongest FP, but whose political sensitivities did you manage to offend? (Maybe another approach to fixing the moderation would be to remove the anonymity?)

I actually think you are touching on a big question there. Why? I think it's basically because they didn't want to have a gap with no living humans who had been to the moon. They're getting old and dying off and that basically created a kind of fake pressure on Congress to fund Artemis, even though America's government has become almost totally dysfunctional in recent years.

The story did produce a number of jokes, some of them good, but the one I was looking for would have involved Musk. Proof of incompetence. How come DOGE didn't manage to kill this one? If Musk is really so clever, then he would have found a way to transfer the business to his company. (More complicated joke involves "might not making right", but winners think they must be morally (or politically) correct because they won. Reality is much more random and lucky and the truth is more like the lottery: "Someone had to win." (Latest data from another pesky book, so I might as well stop.))

Hmm... Maybe that's why I never select playlists? One of those problems I learned about and solved with "Don't do that" a long time ago? I do think that these days a lot of "getting used to" has become "learning how to avoid undesired features". The feeping creaturitus is strong with YouTube.

Perhaps the most interesting aspects of Microsoft Secrets by Cusumano and Selby involve their methods of avoiding feature creep.

Clearly, more research is needed... MORE!

Nice theory. But why would they need to ask? They just offer a salary that is insufficient if the candidate has a family and the candidate with the family quickly answers "No".

If none of the candidates accepts, then they can look for more candidates or call around with slightly better offers until they find a fish.

I think most of those things are clumsy bandages. The fundamental requirement of a real solution would be to transfer money to people who are doing the really difficult work of raising children. However, it looks less expensive to count on lust for sex and love of your own children to get as much as possible of the work "for free". And CPS is another bandage for the resulting problems...

NAK

No thanks. YouTube is the largest scam in this story. (That'll teach you not to ask me? And I'm still going to fall short of Funny...)

It would be interesting to see the real financial data. I think the google actually knows how the money works in YouTube, but revealing how the trick works could create a "That trick never works" again situation. However the general outlines are pretty clear.

YouTube gets lots of eyeballs. That's largely because there is lots of new content all the time, and creating that content is not seen as a cost on the google's side. They basically take a free-speech-ask-no-questions approach, but I'm pretty sure the real data would show that most of the most attractive content is not little guys exercising their free speech, but either big guys trying to get some free publicity, normally with excerpts, or outright criminals pirating the best stuff they can find and copy. But the real question is how much loot google is making from advertising versus how much comes from people paying to avoid some of the advertising...

So yeah, I'm glad the cops finally got around to doing something about this flamboyant and moderately profitable scam, but "Heck no thanks" to watching the YouTube spin version, even if it was cut under ten minutes. Crime is too profitable these years.

Disclaimer needed? I sort of listen to YouTube while I'm doing other stuff. Whenever I notice an ad I flip back to that tab and cut it off. But there's some recursive humor in there because some of the listening time is while I'm scanning the fresh videos (in the subscribed channels, mostly humor) to see if there are any to add to the "watch later" list. Equilibrium around 10 per day? (So my "best stuff" is mostly advertising for tickets to live comedy.) But my actual "watching" time is minimal. I mostly don't look unless I hear something that doesn't make sense without looking at it...

Ever heard of a race to the bottom?

So you have two candidates for a job. But one of them has a family to support and the other one is still living at home. You don't think that's relevant to the salary offer that each candidate will consider acceptable?

Too bad the future of society depends on people having families and therefore on having incomes high enough to support families. Unintended consequences and all that stuff.

Actually the big winners are pretty clear: Netanyahu and Putin. And they are NOT tired of winning yet. Especially not on America's dime. And speculators with insider information. They also won too much and are still winning.

I'm not sure who the biggest losers are yet. Obviously the Iranians are leading candidates, especially any moderate Iranians running loose in Iran. They were probably the most targeted victims the day after the war started.

My growing concern is with Xi's plans to get in on the winning. What sort of "other shoe" is Xi going to drop on the YOB when they meet? Some kind of deal providing Chinese boots on Iranian ground to "fix" the Hormuz problem? Perhaps in exchange for a permanent military base on Taiwan? Let's have a "great deal" to eliminate any threat of a messy amphibious invasion? Or maybe offer the YOB a couple of hotel towers with golf courses near Shanghai and Hong Kong? The corruption also knows no bounds.

Actually they take pictures that include the driver's face. Just recently read about someone being impressed by the high quality of the images. They sent copies with the citation. The question of the identity of the driver seems like a minor one at that point. They would only need to confirm that the face matches a known face. If you tried to claim you had loaned the car to someone else, then it becomes even easier, just proving the photographed face does not match the claimed face. But it reverts to the general facial recognition problem if they send a photo of an unknown person who would then have to be identified using a large database of faces...

However the direction the world seems to be heading, the next step will be real time checking of registration information to make sure the car isn't stolen. After all, that could explain some of the speeding. A car thief is extra likely to be in a bit of a hurry.