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.

You can do it if you really have free energy to spend, and no one else is taking it. But even then, it makes more sense to run a power cable to the next development in the neighborhood and sell the electricity.

No. With 75 kWh, you can power an electric vehicle to go 250 miles. And at current prices for public chargers in the U.S., you can sell the 75 kWh for about $30. With the one gallon you can get from the same 75 kWh, your car will go 35 miles, and you can sell it for $3. It simply makes no sense.

That's simply wrong. People build renewables, because they are decentralized and cheap. Pakistan builds renewables. Southeast Asia builds renewables. Africa builds renewables. India builds renewables. 92% of all newly commissioned electricity generation in the world in 2024 was Solar and Wind. Nuclear and gas turbines are toys for First World countries with money to spend. The rest of the world are just skipping them.

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.

You don't need to connect to the grid to operate a charger. You don't need to connect to the grid to operate the pump of a water well. You don't need to connect to the grid if you power your workshop if you open after sunrise and close before dawn - Africa close to the equator does not have long winter nights. You don't even need to connect to the grid to power a refrigerator, because if those are isolated enough they will not defrost over night. And if you have an older model, you have to pay the money for a battery before connecting the refrigerator to your solar panel - some later to invest in.

In 2023, 82% of all new electricity generation capacity was Solar and Wind. In 2024, 86% of all new electricity generation was Solar and Wind. In 2025, 92% of all new electricity generation capacity was Solar and Wind. I know all the debates about the renaissance of Nuclear, and there is the idea of Clean Coal going around. But the world as a whole goes in a completely different direction: use local resources, and build stuff that is cheap to purchase, cheap to assemble and cheap to maintain and can be put up within days instead of decades.

People buy some solar panels on the local market, strap them to their motorcycles and drive home in their village - instant electricity instead of long engineering. No one cares about baseload or similar nightmares haunting our debates. If it works, it's fine, and maybe next time, they will buy one or two battery packs to have electricity over night. Kenya and Ethiopia experience a boom in electric motorcycles - the ones you can charge in your village, and don't need to push to the next gas station miles away when you ran out of gas, and you don't know if they got gas recently, or if the tank truck is still in repair.

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.

Tell me you don't know why countries allow migration without telling me you don't know why countries allow migration.

Tell me you don't know why people migrate without telling me, that you don't know why people migrate.

I don't. Donald Trump as tried to wield tariffs as a method of extortion and blackmail, hoping that the economy in the U.S. is strong enough to survive better than the opponent. I just pointed out that the previous poster has fallen for a fallacy that was sold to him by propagandists, that the tariffs are all about evening out the economic playing field.

It's problematic for assurance because users cannot tell what undisclosed biases are baked into the weights -- and relying on someone else to do the bulk of the training means you cannot produce your own weights.

Even in classic open source, think of cases like an implementation of Dual_EC_DRBG, a malicious version of gotofail, or the xzutils backdoor. Those are all cases where the source code was available.

That's simply wrong. Switzerland would be a counter example. Germany would be a counter example. Canada would be a counter example - all countries Donald Trump has tried to punish with high tariffs because they export more to the U.S. than vice versa (and he totally ignored services, which are not counted as "exported").

You may restate your argument as soon as the environmental protection and the average wage in the U.S. actually exceeds that of Switzerland.