Tinkering with a word guessing machine to see if you can make it smart is like breeding horses to be faster and faster expecting one to give birth to a locomotive. Word guessing machines are cool but they're never going to actually "understand" what they're talking about.

In one sense, taking on any engineering challenge you haven't done before always causes you to learn something new, so there's always progress. In the case of this particular program (Artemis) there's a lot of reason to be skeptical of what we're getting for the money. The original Apollo was done in a hurry with an all-hands-on-deck attitude, and amazing progress was made. When that program ended and the space shuttle program was created, there was less urgency, and politics dug its heels in. The only reason the shuttle program was allowed to happen was because different parts of the shuttle were manufactured across almost all 50 states. That made it inefficient, but also politically possible. The program itself wasn't as successful as originally hoped, and for reference if the cost of 1 kg to orbit on a (partially reusable) Falcon 9 today is $2700, then the space shuttle's cost of 1 kg to orbit was almost $55,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars. When the shuttle program was scrapped, funding to NASA for Artemis was only approved on the condition that NASA use all the same contractors and parts that the shuttle did. That's why you have two solid rocket boosters and shuttle engines powering the main stage, and a big orange foam insulated tank. And those 4 shuttle engines are thrown away with each launch. It's the least efficient way to do this, but it's politically possible because it keeps a bunch of money flowing out to almost all of the states. SpaceX is developing a new launch platform called Starship that's supposed to be fully re-usable, and the long term cost of 1 kg to orbit is going to be in the range of $150 (some estimates have it under $100). So the whole Artemis program is at risk of being obsolete as soon as Starship is proven to work. I would argue that it's already obsolete and a spending boondoggle, and I'm a space nerd who loves space exploration.

Even Iran has it. Well had it. Pretty sure it's gotten zeroed as of the past few weeks. It was not a large amount (you'd have to look up the amount, I think it is about $10 a month). Anyway the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Ariabia, Kuwait etc. have it. It's just a matter of how much they provide. The UAE provides enough to live on without a job (about $2,900 a month for an individual citizen). I think Saudi Arabia does too.

No it didn't. Nobody in "upper middle class" back in the 50's was "going on a vacation every year to a foreign country." Give me a break. And the general standard of living was much worse, particularly health care. Back in that "golden era" the life expectancy was significantly shorter, everyone smoked, and health care was basically anti-biotics, or nothing. They were still doing lobotomies. And houses were a lot smaller, poorly insulated, almost every kid shared a bedroom with a sibling, you had to wash your own dishes (gasp) because there were no dishwashers. Microwaves weren't a thing. Cribs came covered in lead paint. You were lucky if you had one television, and it was in black and white and got 2 channels. The one thing that an upper middle class family could do in the 50's was buy a new car every couple years, and that's because cars were a lot cheaper as a percentage of income, but they didn't have seat belts, airbags, power steering, and they needed constant maintenance and didn't last very long. Someone making minimum wage today lives better than royalty did hundreds of years ago. Get some common sense and learn about history.

What are you smoking? The median household income in the US is roughly $84,000 a year. That would make $133k very clearly upper middle class. You know that there's more to the US than New York and Los Angeles, right?

Not a lot against the guy, but he should be #5 .. he merely continued the trajectory set by the others.

The government wimped out and pulled funding repeatedly on re-usable launch systems even ones that were showing success.

The ass side of the Sun. Happy? You wanted the answer.

Anyone have any good commentary from flat earthers and moon landing deniers on this? I'm in need of some laughs.

Can they code something up to retrieve email?
I mean having a way to code in space seems like a good idea. Like what if you need to calculate some shit?

This makes you no different than any other creature in this world, and I see nothing wrong with that. You need to do your best to exist in the world as it is, and be realistic about what levers and knobs you can actually adjust.

I assure you that the voters are far more short-sighted than the politicians.

Yes. So?

I already vote green party. I look for practical ways to reduce my carbon footprint.

I'm not going to stop living my life, providing for my family, and making sure my kids have as good of a future as I can manage. And if I'm weighing how much effect I can have on their future by a) putting money towards their education, or b) trying to single-handedly save the planet by spending exorbitant amounts of money on ground source heat pumps, super-expensive electric vehicles, etc., then it's quite obvious that I can do far more good by focusing on helping my immediate family, friends, and community.

How much are we really doing by installing a heat pump water heater vs. everyone else who's pushing crypto-currency mining or AI datacenters, both of which consume enormous amounts of energy for frivolous and/or corrupt purposes?

Honestly, it's completely ironic and sad but the combination of COVID shutdowns plus the high gas prices due to the wars in Ukraine and Iran have at least temporarily cut fossil fuel emissions by more than any other environmental program anywhere or any time.

So piss off already.

No, they're arguing there's ways to use their software to commit an illegal act, which is true of literally anything.

I can't imagine anyone making the argument that using AI tools to rewrite code in another language removes the copyright.

Not exactly, because the amount of stearates that came off the gloves would be fairly random, so there's no way to apply a general correction. You might not even know what kind of gloves they used in the experiment!

That doesn't mean you throw out the results, but you maybe mark those results and say there was potential factor unaccounted for and the results needs to be replicated.