The government, the US government, has never built a single rocket. Not one. From the very beginning at the Army Ballistic Missile Agency through to NASA and other USG agencies, the USG has relied on private aerospace companies to build them and in most cases fully design them as well. In the early days, under the ABMA, the USG was more involved in the detailed design, but later they really just set the specifications and standards. But they never built anything.

The primary difference between SpaceX and all of the other aerospace industries is that they designed their rockets to be cheap enough for legitimate commercial use instead of existing 100% off of the government teat. Literally the opposite of what you accuse them of.

Politician: "Well, it was towed outside the environment."
Interviewer: "Into another environment?"
Politician: "No, no, it's been towed beyond the environment. It's not in the environment."

They literally are though.. Wait, do you think satellites generate RF energy through magic? Their networking equipment doesn't generate heat?

Which means nothing because there are a LOT more registered independent voters than either Democrat or Republican. And when figure in way the independents "lean" the majority flips back to Republicans, although its very close.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/6...

That's not how I read it, it sounds to me like the disparate record keeping caused a single person to be counted as multiple people, each of which may have been counted as recidivist. E.G. one guy gets arrested and spends time in jail/prison a half dozen times in LA, then moves to Miami where they continue to break the law and end up in jail multiple times. This should naturally skew the results as in order for a person to have records in multiple jurisdictions/systems they had to break the law multiple times, which also means they are more likely to continue breaking the law.

Oddly enough I consistently get the same overloaded response from Gemini Enterprise Pro, but never from the free version.

I have seen numerous headlines saying that the corporate world is blaming AI for layoffs as it gives them an easy scapegoat. It sounds like this is something similar.

It would be one thing if they said students were failing courses due to not understanding key concepts of computer science supposedly learned in class and demonstrated in projects or labs. That might easily be explained on overreliance on AI tools.

But not having the required math fundamentals required for a course? That's not on AI that's on them for not vetting the incoming students. And then to throw in the reminder that the UC system stopped using test scores for admittance, well that seems to be the nail in the coffin.

I actually went to a UC school a little over 20 years ago (not Berkeley) and I remember my high school friend and I both had the plan to enter the CS department together. My friend had much better grades than I did, including math. However, based on our SAT/ACT scores he had to retake calculus and take an extra English class that I didn't, and it ended up being prophetic as he struggled with CS (particularly the math) and ended up switching majors.

Sure, everyone does it. Do you somehow think it's a bad idea to make the general populace aware of any specific tactics they identify? Even if it only stops a couple of instances, isn't that better than nothing?

It's such a strange stance to take, being anti-information.

I would be happy to be incorrect here, but I think this is doomed to fail in the near future. Historically developers have been willing to put up with a lot rather grueling work standards for the prestige of working on a major video game. While some of these measures, like "crunch time" have become high profile enough that pushback has reined in their use, there are still a lot more young developers that want to work in the industry than senior folks with the credentials to demand better treatment. Combined with a lot of major studios eyeing AI for the non-creative work of game development and I don't see where the devs have a strong foundation to negotiate from.

What if I told you there used to be a book that would mysteriously show up on the end of your driveway every year or two that had everyone in your town's phone number and physical address listed in it.

Why the /s? Have you seen any new "learn to code" initiatives in the last couple years?

Around 1988 I found one of these in the back of the hall closet at a friends house. I asked him what it was and he said it was his dads work computer, but he hated it so he threw it in the closet.

However, his dad was a salesperson for a bearing company. Didn't seem odd to me as a kid, but I also didn't know those cost as much as mid-range sedan. I wonder what they expected him to do with it?

Seems more like RAM vs SSD. Except the use-case doesn't quite match as those who want to drive longer distances would also be the ones who would need the fast charging the most.

That said, even their regular batteries can charge decently fast right now.

So if you had 100 miles worth of fast charge battery and 200 miles of regular battery, if you only need to get home you are done charging in under 5 minutes. If you need to continue on your long journey, the first 1/3 of your charging is much faster than it otherwise would have been. Not a terrible solution. You end up with a battery that charges faster overall and is lighter overall. But we don't really know about costs.

That's a dumb take. To go back to the car analogy, that's like saying the auto mechanic should be "the expert" for who is most likely to be involved in an auto accident, when the actual experts are insurance adjusters.

The people who should be most qualified to determine if we will have a nuclear holocaust would be some combination of political scientist, nuclear armaments expert, and military strategist.

That said, I think this guy is trying to get people to buy his book or something because his "fear" is not possible.

Even if EVERY SINGLE NUCLEAR WEAPON EVER MADE (approximately 13k devices) were detonated at the same time, targeting the largest and most populous locations on down, it would destroy approximately 2.5-3% of the world's land mass and would kill between 5 and 10% of the world's population. The nuclear fallout would kill a few million more later. This would be almost entirely relegated to the northern hemisphere. Even if this led to "nuclear winter" and impacted the ability to grow crops leading to famine, you are still looking at less than 50% mortality. Humanity will survive.

The US is a net exporter of oil and petroleum based fuels. If push comes to shove, you may see an executive order requiring the priority of domestic utilization over export.

Oil can and will get expensive in the US, but unless there are Enron levels of shadiness going on it shouldn't run out.