Honestly, I don't know if you've been watching too many Penelope Pitstop cartoons or too much CSPAN. It's getting hard to tell the difference.

There are obviously cases where complete vertical integration makes no sense; literally all of them if you interpret 'complete' at full strictness; but when someone actually says "privatization" they basically always mean contracting out something large enough to be or have been an internal program. Sort of the way you don't say "outsourcing" unless it either was or plausibly could be an internal function. Ordering copy paper from staples or having a meeting catered generally doesn't count.

That doesn't mean to say that it's always a bad idea; but when someone says 'privatization' that's a "we'll have SAIC do it" proposal not a "employees and the DoE use laptops they got under a GSA schedule contract rather than from the First People's Computational Manufactury" proposal.

He was from West Virginia?

Yes, that's perfectly obvious. If you check the Oramics machine from 1958, that's basically what it was.

If you had specialists do so, I'd agree.

This is why programmers do not check every corner case, they hire QA enginers to check every corner case.

You hire generalists to see how interactions between technologies impact things.

Daphne Oram's Oramics machine turned hand-drawn squiggles that were the information-bearing portions of a spectrogram into recognisable audio. And, like I said, that was 1958. A spectrogram, as others have noted, is an image.

The only thing they could possibly be covering up is that they have vast teams of ultra-specialised uber-gurus who have no meaningful cross-domain expertise (which is understandable, you can't be an ultra-specialised uber-guru if you do) but also that they've essentially nothing else and therefore nobody who can red-flag when a skill in one domain allows a person to exploit information that is released by another.

There is nothing wrong, at all, with having ultra-specialised uber-gurus for something like the NTSB, but 100% of their errors throughout history have come from not having additional teams that are cross-domain experts who can identify when accident issues aren't domain-specific (the 737 rudder control jams from a couple of decades ago and the 737-MAX automatic flight systems are examples of issues that was almost unsolvable through lack of cross-domain expertise) or when informational issues aren't domain-specific (as in this case).

You need the specialists, but relying on them alone is a great way to blunder. and the NTSB does not like admitting it blunders, which is why you're not seeing organisational changes, merely ad-hoc communication changes.

A spectrogram is basically a description of the sound and Daphne Oram pioneered technology for turning the informational sections of a spectrogram into sound back in 1958. That would be.... 68 years ago, by my reckoning.

Now, technology has moved on a great deal in 68 years. Exactly what you could do today, relative to what she did back then, is obviously significant. But this really should not have come as a shock.

The lack of understanding of this sort of stuff shows what happens when you have too many niche specialists and too few people who understand the broad technology.

If they think it's worth it, on the balance, yeah. I'm not telling people where to put their money; or how to weigh the risk of Musk skimming the till on the actually-profitable rocketry in order to cover losses building mechahitler or trying to make orbital datacenters work.

I was mostly responding to the "I ask because I'd imagine the first thing the collective shareholders will ask for is that the crappy bits of Musk Inc. get divested as quickly as possible." part of the above poster's post. This is 100% an IPO where, to the degree legally possible and potentially beyond, and more so than even typical tech IPO voting structures, anyone who thinks that they are getting even a whisper of oversight, even at institutional investor scale, is kidding themselves.

It's up to you whether or not you think that a security representing whatever basket of endeavors Musk feels like conducting will be worth it; or if the risk that he'll bleed the winners to prop up his more dubious bets is too high; my note is purely that this IPO is genuinely rather novel in the degree to which it's designed to put the current CEO in effectively total control. Even compared to something like the mostly-unremovable Zuckerberg voting/nonvoting shares arrangement this has additional curbs on shareholder resolutions and litigation options.

Anyone who is hoping to avoid Musk's dumber ideas should probably just stay the hell away. Even by the standards of the classic "oh, there's actual-votes stock and peon stock; guess which kind we sold during the IPO" stuff; spacex is pushing things. The boy-king of mars holds 85% of the voting power; shareholders are required to waive the right to jury trial or class action and submit to arbitration only, only class B shareholders(mostly Musk) can remove the chairman of the board, CEO, or CTO; and similar enthusiastic use of Texas' provisions for 'controlled companies' that really don't want to take any pesky outside input.

Putting your money on that is pretty much entirely just making a bet on whether you think the dictator for life will make line go up or not; not even pretending to be analogous to an ownership stake.

If it weren't a technical issue; would it actually be a moral issue?

I suspect that there are lots of ways, including some surprises, of getting the problem wrong to some degree and introducing nasty developmental issues; so I could see an IRB having very plausible objections to the "eh, we'll keep pumping out flipper babies until we trial and error our way to what an embryo requires to develop a brain stem properly!" R but, if for sake of argument, you had a system that actually worked wouldn't that basically just be surrogacy without the seedy undercurrent of economic conscription?

Unfortunately, Musk and friends took that into account. They demanded, and received rule changes to get rammed into indexes as fast as possible. They'll certainly be happy to take direct purchases from any of the weirdos paying for blue checks on twitter; but the strategy is clearly intended to not require the bagholders to bite directly; instead hitting anyone with index exposure as rapidly and automatically as possible.

Basically, violence in the Middle East started on a significant scale with the collapse of the ecosystem. Natural climate shifts in the area reduced food available and regions that were inhabitable. This resulted in massive population migrations (the Sea People, the Babylonians, etc). As natural resources were depleted and became highly centralised, violence became worse. The collapse of the tin market resulted in Dark Ages for many cultures in the region, where societies imploded catastrophically.

As wealth increased, corruption increased. We know all about a copper merchant in Babylonian times, but it was unusual enough that he wrote a long and rambling letter in cuneiform about it. These sorts of complaints weren't common but increased. Corruption requires chaos, and chaos generates conflict. So this relationship should not be surprising. It's not that corruption causes violence, but corruption and violence have the same cause and are tightly coupled.

The violence in the Middle East dates back to the early Bronze Age. The Shah was violent and assassinated political rivals. In the 1940s, half of the Middle East sided with the Nazis.

The violence did not start in the 1970s, it didn't even start with Islam. It predates all of that.

Blaming individual X or modern event Y is to ignore the violence and open warfare leading up to those.

Only an idiot fixates purely on Iran. One genocidal Syrian despot has been replaced with another genocidal Syrian despot. IS is back on the rise. Egypt is a military dictatorship. Libya went from military dictatorship to perpetual civil war. The Arab Spring was ultimately crushed not because of a hatred of freedom but because the entire region is riddled with corruption.

Iran is a minor side show.