I have zero care what you voting twats think.

No, unless and until they can produce a gallon of gasoline chaper than pumping oil out of the ground, refininging it, and shipping it to the gas station -- an economic miracle if you think about it

This makes sense for remote, off-the-grid locations where you have access to renewable power like solar that you don't pay for by the kilowatt hour. You could make enough gas from a modest setup to meet an inidvidual's needs.

Did NASA accept o ring leakage?
My understanding was that the o ring performance (failure) surprised engineers, and was determined to be a result of the exceptional (cold) launch conditions.... Or?

To be clear, the fact the o rings even existed was a result of congressional pork barrelling in the first place. The booster construction was originally designed to be one piece but by contracting it to some favored inland congressional district, it needed to be in 2 parts to fit rail transport.

It's one thing to man-rate a *technology*; but the *production processes* and supply chain need to be equally robust. The Apollo Command Module was flown a half dozen times before any manned mission.

Apollo was a project that had economic scale. Many test objects were created and many beta units produced of critical components like the Command Module. While managing larger scale processes has its own challenges, the fact that the processes are *repeated* make them easier to debug.

The low pace of manned missions in the current era adds to their risk. You can man-rate the *technology*, but (a) it's minimally tested and (b) produced artisinally instead of industrially. There were, perhaps, 180 space suits of various types produced for Apollo (not all of which flew), which while below "industrial" production quantities was a lot of repeittion of the operations needed to make them. The astronauts on Artemis missions will be wearing suits produced at a rate of a handful over a decade.

While the hindsight and experience from sixty years of manned space flight reduce the technological risk, that is offset by the production quality risk from low cadence production. Assembly personnel and even vendors can turn over between production orders.

I see this as a rich-get-richer scenario. Smart people, the ones who can outthink statistical parrot, will be able to use its speed at processing and digesting massive quantities of data to improve their productivity. People who can't outthink the things will have to use them *credulously*, and thus become functionally dumber than ever.

Has this happened?
No?
Are you imagining something just for the sake of arguing against it?
Yes.
That is a strawman.

The WHO showed its value (or lack thereof) kowtowing HARD to Xi and China during the COVID outbreak, cheerfully parroting whatever narrative China wanted to promulgate.

This is even more ironic in the light that the US pays a grossly disproportional share of WHOs budget both in assessed and "voluntary" contributions - MULTIPLES of what China pays.

Sure, I think there should be a world health organization, but why should the US pay the lion's share?
It's funny how at the end of the day, all these organizations ... the US seems to paying the bulk of the tab.

https://www.statista.com/stati...

Historical note: it made PERFECT sense that the US was the overwhelmingly dominant funder of all these sorts of organizations in 1946. Even in 1960, the rest of the world was still rebuilding while we enjoyed the massive economic advantage left us after WW2.
If you noticed: it's NOT "just after WW2" any more.
The US borrows 20-25% of every year's budget against the future, meaning every dollar we pay WHO, every dollar we use to fund the UN, 20-25% is being paid by a loan against future economic performance. That's asinine and needs to change, full stop.

I don't LIKE how Trump has done the things he's done but at the core, in many ways he's not wrong.

Personally, I think the fact that BILL GATES pays 50% more than EUROPE should be humiliating for that particular putative "world power". (To be clear, Germany - separately I believe - pays almost as much as "Europe", lol).

My bike goes 20 MPH on throttle, full battery power. Pedal assist works up to 28MPH.

No KPH spec.

In Arizona e-bikes are explicitly identified as NOT motor vehicles. In law. Not even Class 3 bikes.

And it is not permitted to identify them as such, nor attempt to apply motor vehicle law to their operation{.

Nope. This is a common problem, and one that should not so really happen.

Just a confirmation message, like 'this will permanently delete all of your data. Do you wish to continue?'

That presumes the ChatGPT team both actual knows how it all works, and that they care much at all.

I see this from a British perspective and I have always, always preferred our system of not having some hundreds year old document to worship. The weakness is having the paper at all, not in needing to rewrite it. The UK is based on precedent and as such is far more adaptable to modern situations.

In short you have a people problem, not a documentation problem.

Good riddance.

Public transportation makes people poorer.

For a private company, making a profit is necessary for continued existence. Companies that don't make a profit get bought out and liquidated for the value of their assets.

The alternative would be to nationalize drug development -- socialized medical research. Or there's just waiting and hoping for the best, which is what we're headed toward.

"Anyone describing me in a way that is entirely accurate but makes me sad" I will declare it an epithet and them stupid-heads for making me uncomfortable.

Is that about right, Corky Sherwood? Going to go home and bite your pillow in rage?

Bullshit x 1000.
If I see a painting in a book or a museum, and think, "cool, I could do my own take on that" the artist doesn't get one red cent.

"But" you say, "The museum or the book paid the author for that art".
They likely did.

But whether one argues that
a) the creator was already fully paid already and they get nothing more for later views, or
b) that their payment is backward-rationalized across all the potential viewers in the future (meaning what they're paid per-view asymptotically approaches zero ANYWAY), or
c) that - by posting their creation online where a LLM can get to it - they're VOLUNTARILY conceding free access to their work by human or electronic eyeballs, the distinction in this case being irrelevant ...at the end of the day, no, the author is NOT getting (in a real sense) anything (more) from me taking a look. Which ends up just like an LLM parsing it.