Does Spacex and their starship put them at the forefront of rocketry?

I guess I have spent enough time with other researchers that we look at things incrementally, not as one single. thing placing a group at the front of the pack, which would make them the goto rather than anyone else. Landing at the lunar pole is in itself a cool achievement.

So now, should we ask china all lunar questions, because they know the most because they have found ice? If you are at the forefront, you are considered the group to go to in all matters, the others are not at the forefront, and of little use, ask China, they know all the answers, and your wasting your time asking the also rans Yes, if China discovers water ice, that is very cool, and a first. Congrats are in order. It doesn't make them ahead of all others in lunar science. And if they don't find water ice, that means they missed a chance at becoming the lunar leader?

Maybe a cultural thing. But people in here apparently think this is some nationalistic thing. I look at it as an incremental science thing.

Okay, I have subscriptions in my cars, so can't easily duplicate it. I get weather alerts through my smartphone as well, so looks like I'm going to have a hard time invoking the problem you are having.

Sure, that's why smart designs have both touch screen and regular switches. A lot of things work best with a computer interface. And setting them up is done while sitting still. There are features like drive lane assist strength and lane assist that have different strengths that would be a real PITA to set up is no screen was present, Standards for pressure and temperature, and quite a few other things that a touch screen makes easy.

But just like olde school cars, yeah - you have to look at the mechanical controls like heat/fan/radio/ turn signals/rear view mirrors, side mirrors, and adjustments for them.

The idea that you only look straight ahead at the road, keep your hands in one position only, isn't even good, and makes a bad version of perfect the enemy of normal driving. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... This is not to defend the idiotic texting while driving. Even then, modern cars with CarPlay will allow you completely hands free texting and phone use. Note - I use Apple CarPlay, and am not familiar with Android CarPlay. I do know apple CarPlay is very accurate on voice to text.

On my Jeep, they seem to have wanted to take care of everyone. Rather big touchscreen, But also has the olde school knobs and buttons for heat/ac and radio. Radio can also be controlled by switches on the steering wheel or by the touchscreen of course.

Even the speedometer has an analog needle along with the digital display. It does not allow you to change a lot of settings while in motion.

It is pretty darn good design, and accommodates pretty much all preferences.

A couple of my favorite features are I can read temps of coolant, oil and transmission, as well as it has a oil change system that pays attention to driving style and conditions, then reminds me when it decides it is time. It doesn't just use milage.

So yes the system isn't simple, but I like it.

That's interesting, because I've seen some odd stuff on Asian built vehicles.

My Jeeps infotainment systems are pretty good using CarPlay. When still, I can use the touchscreen. In motion, there are buttons on the steering wheel, and old school knobs below the screen, but there are functions it won't let me mess with while in motion. Has excellent hands-free phone and texting. It is pretty well thought out.

My son's car, I forget what model, but asian, has an infotainment system that is utterly bizarre. So I can concur - a nice vehicle hardware, with a weird screen system.

How does that present itself? I've had SiriusXM for years and I'd like to see if I can invoke that.

It was not bumper related, but the intake tube for the gas tank directly connected to the body of the car. And could have been mitigated by a recall that replaced the steel direct mount to a flexible coupling. But the idiots didn't do that. Ruined a nice little car.

This mission is exceptionally cool, and discovering water there will have important impact, but the (China) "will be the leader in lunar science" is a bit of hype, kind of tawdry from a senior scientist.

Now, I don't know if any of the AC and troll posts have noted - I'm reading at no lower than 1 today, but Scientific American is pretty politically compromised, with articles like "Modern Mathematics confronts its White Patriarchal Past. https://www.scientificamerican... and "Denial of Evolution is a Form of White Supremacy" https://bit.ly/3Cyq9gx. And "Why the term JEDI is problematic for describing programs that Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion" https://bit.ly/3pVSPg4

In striking irony, SciAm fired Michael Shermer, the writer of "The Skeptic" column because he didn't accept their ideology, the inclusive people excluded him. He's a skeptic, for chrissakes! That's what they do.

My point in all of this, is the hype. The mission, while very cool, is another mission, not an expression of lunar supremacy. If they find water, I'll be cheering the science, not anointing a nation as sciences new leader.

Somewhat related, and with the business of disrupted weather patterns, in Canada, there have been a lot of fires, the West coast has been baking.

While here in PA, we're inundated with rain - the ground is saturated, and every new storm brings flooding. I wish we could send about half of that water out west.

And while I don't think we've had any 90+ degree days here, it isn't cooling down much at night. mid 80's during the day, mid 70's at night.And I only recall one day the humidity dropped below 99 percent (went down to 93 percent)

Weather is pretty unstable at the moment, with some pretty anomalous stuff going on.

Oops! Sorry Rei - I posted before removing the last part of your post. Anyone reading should know that my post ends after

"So in the end, studies just do what studies do, which is show interesting avenues for research. That people believe a study is a fact is kind of a people problem, not a study problem."

While I share your skepticism, I'd love to read the exact study, and know that they attempted to force monovariant analysis on a multivariant situation. That would go a long way towards settling this.

But it isn't saying all changes are based on sugar. Maybe it's because they gave children a lot of Marmite on toast. 8^) It's just a study.

It would appear that you are suggesting that there might be a causal link between vaccines, clean air act (or whatever GB has for that) are creating this increase in cancer. Because this is a study taking data from before those occurrences. I'm pretty sure you aren't, but the timelines don't quite sync up with the Sugar thing.

Studies are just that. Looking for interesting data from the historical/medical record. And while interesting, they can show paths forward for research.

And I'm very skeptical, but not dismissive. We've had bad conclusions, even corruption in the "eat this, not that" business. If we use the US food pyramid, we see that years ago, the sugar industry had corrupt researchers point heart disease causation and other illnesses at fat and proteins. They even claimed that salt was bad. The food pyramid was heavily stacked toward grains and carbs. And interestingly, as people followed those guidelines, obesity and certain diseases like diabetes increased along with the increase.

Also interestingly, I noted that as I tried to incorporate the "proper" diet, my weight became very hard to control.

And in my parent's generation, there were only a few obese relatives and others I knew. And the way they ate, the so called healthy diets would predict they'd be dropping like flies. Lots of bacon, beef, butter, cheese, fat, and while they ate bread, the amount paled in comparison to what was considered healthy.

Most all of them lived to ripe old ages. Trim and generally healthy. Some passed away in their mid 80's from smoking related issues.

Point is, they ate more like the new guidelines. And of course, there were other factors. But the fact is, their "unhealthy diet" didn't seem to cause what it was supposed to create according to the smart people.

So in the end, studies just do what studies do, which is show interesting avenues for research. That people believe a study is a fact is kind of a people problem, not a study problem.

It's also worth mentioning that there's also survivorship bias - anyone who died before the study couldn't be enrolled, and there's also no actual linking to any maternal / childhood dietary logs. Also, the ratios of cancer differences they're describing aren't small, they're massive. Are we to attribute a lung cancer difference on the order of smoking vs. nonsmoking households as being to sugar, or due to, you know, smoking (or pollution) trends not accounted for in their cohort?

Trying to head off the required Anecdotes are useless replies on slashdot, amirite? Actually, anecdotes aer the very bedrock of the scientific method, otherwise we'd all just pick completely random things when trying to solve problems. Like trying to go to the moon by researching dinosaurs. Anyhow, the standard slashdot Anecdotes are not evidence, and correlation is not causation memes on slashdot are amusing.

We didn't have a lot of sugar when I was a kid either. Had a strange combo. My Mother was Italian, Father Eastern European. But not much sugar among the meld. Pierogis and Pizza we always said, although it was more like a lot of fresh and home canned veggies, salads, and home made Italian and Hungarian sausage.

Side foray on salt. Father worked at a foundry. At the hot end, they of course had salt tablets. Some clever industrial hygienist employee was hired, and since in the 1970's, salt was !bad! He took all the salt tablet dispensers away. Employees at the hot end were dropping and getting sick. Smarter minds put the dispensers back. When I was playing Ice hockey, when you sweat off 10-15 pounds per game, you need salt badly after a game. If you just drink water, your electrolytes get all messed up.

Back to the sugar. Here in the states, they could run a study on Amish people. I live near Amish country, and wife and I travel to shop there at times. Those folk are addicted to that stuff. Seems like all of the conditions that this study says are mitigated by less sugar should show up conversely in the Amish.

and nowdays I pretty much never put it in my food and shy away from sweet food, and use pretty minimal salt.

With all that said, the study does mention that children exposed to less sugar in early childhood appeared to have longer telemeres and that there is likely the smoking gun on the early childhood / sugar link, as theres a pretty well established link between telemere length and cancer succeptibility in late life. Essentially the telemeres are the caps on the end the genomes, and the longer they are, the better protected the ends of the genome are from copying errors. Its also closely associated with the hayflick limit (essentially how many copies a cell can make before it shits the bed).

Remember, while some are trying to make this Pass/Fail, the actual thing that UM is doing is Pass/No Credit. There is a difference. One does not fail under teh UM system.

You are correct in that students getting grades all those years, then suddenly Pass/Fail, or Pass/No Credit - that doesn't make a lot of sense.

One of the worst aspects of Pass/Fail is that in a graded system, there are metrics that tell what might need to be worked on. I kinda sucked in maths beyond Algebra. But I would have passed, so in a Pass/Fail grading system, my grade as a struggling student would be exactly the same as a student that excelled.

Under a graded system with a measurement metric, it was seen that I needed tutoring.

In an ironic twist, while tutoring helped some, my real breakthrough was the old school slide rule. I managed to get into the last class offered in that venerable instrument. Something about the mechanical aspect clicked, and now I do some pretty complicated stuff in my head. I call it the mathemechanical process.

So yes - grades versus Pass/Fail can be a much superior system, pointing out areas that need work, rather than overtly telling some poorly performing student that they are the equivalent of the best student in the class.

Note - I still keep a slide rule handy for really complicated stuff in the house and shop. The battery life on those things is great! ;^)

For a first job, it is in the mix. They hire based on a few criteria. The candidate's ability The candidate's attitude. The candidate's work record. The candidate's maturity. The candidate's ability to work with others.

The candidate's maturity. Which beings me back to my core thesis. The concept of not allowing a student to fail - the Pass/no credit that if we read TFA (this is not pass/fail, this is only pass, or you don't get the points, all of this because the student's are apparently having a universal mental health crisis.

Who do you want to hire - a candidate's who understands that there is some adversity, and can handle it, to a candidate who is still suffering some mental health crisis?

If I might interject some truth in here. As people increasingly turn to prescription drugs and look at having mental issues as kind of a flex, demanding to feel a sort of euphoria because they suffer from "mental health" crises, a world in which antidepressants are no longer enough, but a world where actual antipsychotics are mainstreamed, they actually eliminate themselves from certain careers that require good judgement.

I know, because I've worked in those positions. There are "tells" like antipsychotic drug use, even neck or facial tattoos that tells us that a person might make bad decisions, or already has.

A pity we didn't let them grow up as an alternative. Let them fail, then pick themselves up while still young.

I dunno. The stressed kids are going to be stressed out regardless of the games we play to ease their stressed.

And the concept of making things easy and stress free, one of the core principles of instilling self esteem without accomplishment, simply does not work. All this entire concept does is delay the stress a while, not eliminate it.

The idea of generations attempting in vain to become mentally mature adults in their 30's is pretty frightening.