You can't decide whether changes were or weren't implemented on the basis of a document that was issued before any changes were implemented. Are you even thinking here?

You apparently missed the sentence where I said "Too long a post to address point by point."

Sorry. It was too long a post to address point by point. TL;DRPBP.

You're seriously asking whether, in a completely hypothetical situation, I'd follow safety protocols or just say "screw it, my job is more important than the safety of a bunch of people I don't even know"? I will assure you, in all completely hypothetical situations my actions will be as if I were a combination of Mohandas Gandhi and Saint Francis. Not sure why this answer is useful. From my experience with QA, all the QA inspectors I've worked with would err on the side of caution, and would say, inspect them all.

Too long a post to address point by point, except that I will point out that you can't cite the Rogers Commission Report and Columbia Accident Investigation Report as sources to show that NASA has not changed as a result of the changes suggested in the Rogers Commission Report and Columbia Accident Investigation Report.

Your comment mostly summarizes as saying you don't know anything in particular about NASA processes or how they were changed (or not) as a result of the reports, but you know other organizations, and in your opinion management is the same everywhere and doesn't change. Fine, that's your opinion.

And, in response to your question, yes, I do work in aerospace, but not on manned missions.

This looks like a development that comes out of work done to generate rocket fuel on Mars, basically taking carbon dioxide and water and converting it to hydrocarbons.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=maki...

Stallman being a contrarian.

A more notable point is that while she said that Epstein had instructed her to have sex with Marvin Minsky, she didn't conclude that with a statement that she actually did.

What does the phrase "from what I can tell" mean here? Do you have any knowledge of the NASA safety culture?

23 years ago. The assertion is that the NASA safety protocols changed as a result of the Challenger and Columbia accidents.

Before Challenger there wasn't any way for an engineer to elevate their safety concerns past their first level of management. This changed as a result of the reviews of what went wrong after the Challenger and Columbia disasters.

https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa....

The culture changed.

The root-cause analysis now done by NASA (overseen by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center) is now pretty thorough. Their failure review boards don't just identify the failure but going down the chain of "why" to ultimately the management structure.

The difficulty is that there are always people for whom NO level of engineering analysis and testing will ever convince them of safety.

The best you can do is to actually listen to the engineers who understand the technology.

Right. It doesn't happen tomorrow. Or next year. It takes time.

This is a flaw in modern thinking; if we can't do something immediately, right this very minute, it's not worth doing.

It will take time. Let's start.

The university mentioned in the article is Penn State, so I assume that's the one being discussed here? From their website:
2024-2025 Penn State University Park tuition rates for an academic year (fall and spring semesters):
PA Resident: $20,644
Non-PA Resident: $41,790

multiplying by 4 years, that comes to $82,576 for in-state, $167,160 for out of state. So, your numbers seem wrong by a factor of 2 to 2.5

As a hasty breakdown, three of the supreme court judges are liberal, and tend toward a liberal interpretation of the law; three of the judges are Trumpists, and will vote with whatever Trump wants every time, and three are conventional conservatives, and will go with the conservative interpretation of the law, which may not always be the Trump interpretation.

I will point out that Elon Musk has often declared that various organizations he's run will be completely transparent and all details will be open for inspection, but the result has been no transparency at all.

Musk's highly touted "Department of Government Efficiency," for example, we were told would have a website that detailed exactly what the "savings" were... and they did put up a website... but it didn't itemize the majority of cuts, and of the ones that were itemized, many were inaccurate or mistaken.

Intellectual property is correctly protected by patents and by trade secrets. Once you have put something out to consumers, anything they can learn by looking at it is not a trade secret-- the definition of a trade secret is that if it is disclosed to the public, it is not secret.

A law against reverse engineering is essentially inventing a new kind of prohibition, saying you can't look at what's inside something you own and see how it works.

Well, of course. Why would you need to reverse engineer your own product? You are agreeing with Cory here, reverse engineering is a necessary prelude to modifying somebody else's product to make it work better.

Nice inks, but please don't post URLs with no explanation of what the URLs are or why you're posting them.

Releasing the source code will be useless, of course, since he already said that it's using Grok, an AI.

Unless you know what's internal to Grok (and its training data), the quick summary of the key part of the source is "feed user information into black box. Return results from black box."