we can not affrord to train and hire more.
Do you know how US healthcare costs at least ten times more than in other countries?
Eliminate from "the system" all the middlemen, all the shenanigans, all the MBA'ing, and all the lobbied-for anti-healthcare laws, and you'll have a lot with which to train (for free) and hire (with excellent wages) more doctors.
do you really think they're doing this haphazardly?
Yes.
Next question?
Commander Reid Wiseman and the other mission specialist Jeremy Hansen are irrelevant. Just camp followers for the more important crew members
The white male members of the crew have the least amount of space experience with Jeremy Hansen not having a full day in space yet. I suppose people could complain about the crew having a token white guy as he has no background in engineering unlike the rest of the crew.
The primary stated goal of NASA's Artemis program for several years was to land the first woman and person of color on the moon. It was emphasized repeatedly, trumpeted, and openly stated on NASA's website for years (before it was taken down in March 2025).
While I certainly understand your attempt to strawman the point, this doesn't logically mean the woman and person of color on the crew are necessarily unqualified.
What it does suggest to anyone who isn't crying racism/sexism on a daily basis, is that given equivalent qualifications, these individuals - to fill the stated goal of the program - would have been preferentially picked over other candidates afflicted with the regrettable conditions of whiteness and/or maleness.
IF NASA would have gone so far as to pick someone to fill those gendered- and ethnically-preferred roles over someone more qualified, I can't say. (Then again, we have KBJ as Supreme Court so anything's possible.)
https://medium.com/predict/thi...
"The real reason we will never be able to "fix" the drought is because the American West is not in a drought right now.
And you can't fix something that isn't broken.
The West's rapid aridification isn't being caused by a "once-in-a-century" weather event like the flooding in Kentucky or the nearly constant hurricanes that pummel the Southeast each year.
It's not even the direct result of climate change (although that's definitely accelerating the process and making the effects more intense). Western states are running out of water because they are located in a desert.
What we're dealing with in the West is not a drought because the current lack of rainfall isn't "abnormal" for a desert. Dry is the default setting. And you can't call it a "drought" because you wish deserts were wetter.
The problem isn't the so-called drought - - it's the city planners, developers, and suburbanites who built cities in a desert with no plan to provide water beyond wishful thinking and praying for rain.
The fact that we got weirdly lucky with unseasonably wet weather for a few decades has helped us ignore the reality that the American West simply doesn't have the water to support 65 million people - - and half of the country's agriculture - - at least not at anything near our current water usage levels.
And there's really nothing we can do about it."
According to researcher Lynn Ingram, a professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at UC Berkeley, "The 20th century was abnormally wet and rainy." Ingram goes on to claim, "The past 150 years have been wetter than the past 2,000 years." (cf "The California drought is helping return the weather pattern to normal" https://archive.ph/0m3BI)
In other words, what we're experiencing now isn't a drought. It's a reestablishment of the norm."
I see you didn't list the degrees and qualifications of the white men. I guess just by being a white man that means you're automatically qualified. I must have missed legacy admissions being outlawed
The white men on this crew have the least space experience of the four with Jeremy Hansen not having spent a whole day in space yet so I could say he is the token white guy. Christina Koch has almost as much space experience as the rest of the crew.
Precisely. Even if one session is fed the explicit code and documents it, then the second session generates code ostensibly based on the documentation generated by the first without having been fed the original code explicitly, the AI underlying both sessions was itself trained on the original code, even if a previous version of it, and holds large chunks of it lossy-compressed within its internal weights, to the point that, with the proper prompting in an entirely unrelated third session, we can get it to reproduce parts of that original code, if not the entirety of it. The end result is thus a two-step derivative of the original: original -> weights-compressed version of the original (first derivation) -> reimplementation based on that weights-compressed derivative version (second derivation).
For this to be true clean room one would need to entirely train a coding AI with everything it needs to become good enough except for the packages they want a clean-room implementation of, thus making sure there's absolutely nothing of that code anywhere within its weights. That AI would need to generate the documentation by being fed the completely novel (to it) code. Once that documentation was done, a completely clean state version of that AI would need to be started, no trace of the original code at all anywhere close to it or in its weights, then fed the documentation to code from it. Then, and only then, this code would be a true clean room implementation of that code.
Right now, that full special training from scratch for every set of packages one would want to clean room would be exorbitantly expensive, way more than paying two human teams to do the clean room implementation the old-fashioned way, so no one would really want to do it.
A dummy load and some chemistry to use oxygen would do the same job with zero human risk.
How would this dummy load of your test all the systems? The most logical mission here is to send a crew to the moon and back and have them test the systems in preparation for other crews to follow.
even if it is ineffective and easily worked around by minors
Australia is on the forefront of not allowing that to work for long. Their age-verification enforcement agency is actively monitoring every single trick kids use to bypass verification and updating their compliance rules to force companies to block those loopholes one by one.
For example, they've recently started threatening fines to websites that allow users to update their age to be higher than the threshold when they had previously informed they were younger than that, that allow a user to keep sending photos over and over and over until one is accepted as being higher than the threshold, and that accept known videogame characters to be accepted as photos of real people.
The game of cat and mouse will continue, and there's going to always be techniques that work, but they will become harder and harder, as well as more and more hidden, since revealing them in public where the authorities can also learn of them will trigger their banning. At some point it'll become so hard to bypass for anyone but the most dedicated teens that they expect most will simply give up such attempts and accept living under the imposed restrictions. Some will bypass them regardless, but as long as the percentage is tiny the law will be considered a success from the enforcers' perspective.
Soros hasn't been the Soros of tech, or anything, for a long time. He's one billionaire doing advocacy and lobbying for liberal causes, while all the others, individually and put together, are nowadays doing advocacy and lobbying for conservative causes. If anything, he's currently the lone underdog fighting an uphill battle against impossible odds.
The main pusher has been Meta. They want age verification everywhere because it (mostly) allows distinguishing real humans from bots, including AI bots. From what I read, no idea whether this is accurate or not, they want that because of ads. Bots don't generally buy products, so showing them ads reduces click-through metrics, thus ad revenue.
AI companies I don't know. For Altman, World might be a driving factor, but I imagine a more important factor is regulatory capture. The more roadblocks to competition billion- and trillion-dollar incumbent companies manage to add to their markets, the less competition from new entrants unable to afford compliance.
Each time some nerd says "Let them censor I have a VPN" he forgets that the next step is to crackdown on VPNs. Technical defenses against political problems only give you a bit of time, but will eventually fail.
Even worse is when they compromise the VPN operators and then monitor your usage until you do something that makes them decide to crack down on you.
People erroneously think of VPNs as privacy protectors. They aren't, not unless you have very good reason to trust whoever is running the server. If you don't, then they're concentrators for likely subversive traffic and its origins.
"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts." -- John Wooden
