You're right, they're separate processes, but they're not independent. Now that the revenue side of things has been slashed, chime in the folks who suddenly are very concerned about the deficit arguing that there's no way to keep nasa funding at previous levels

Yes and no -- you're correct that the appropriations process for discretionary spending is separate, but it's coupled together because the revenue half of the equation got slashed. I predict suddenly folks will be screaming loudly about deficit spending in the face of all the steps of the appropriations process now

You do realize that 1968 was a long time ago??

So they have discussed this exact thing previously. As well as why they didn't include a mechanical system to clean or blow off the panels. And it all comes down to weight: The weight and added complexity of any of these systems is greater than just making the solar panels bigger so that it takes longer for dust accumulation to put them out of commission.

The quote you're responding to literally says *want*. It made the distinction. To get everything they *wanted* they had to subscribe to both services.

You were in such a rush to shit on other people you didn't even read your own quote.

Maybe if RCS actually existed, then people would move to it?

Interesting.

Personally I changed purchasing habits because of Amazon Prime's return guarantees. I became much more willing to take a risk on a product... And honestly I still don't make many returns, unless the product is literally defective or (in one case) they only sent one of the two welding foot protectors we ordered...

If free, guaranteed returns go away I imagine I'll go back to buying a lot less.

Man, I am sorry for how you've suffered. But thank you for sharing.

I don't know that it will be any help, but here's an article about the thing I was referring to, the 'Russian Flu' and its long-haulers: https://www.thelancet.com/arti...

Your last two sentences there are an eerie echo of the 1890s...

In the 1890s, a marked feature of the psychoses of influenza was a profound sense of dread accompanied by feelings of alienation, both from oneself and from others. Disembodiment or the mutiny of one's own facilities was a common description: "My powers of enduranceâ have been shaken by âoea recent attack of influenza and its consequences", wrote Speaker Peel to Henry Lucy in 1894.

COVID kills young people. But more importantly, COVID maims young people at a significantly higher rate than it kills them. And we don't know when, if ever, they get over the long-term symptoms. The medical history of similarly afflicted people after the 'Russian Flu' at the end of the 19th century doesn't bode well.

From a detached perspective: For society, kIlling young people might be less bad than permanently disabling them.

Once proof of stake goes through, doesn't it make the problem worse? Now instead of getting money from both minting coins and doing transactions, people running the blockchain rigs will only get transaction money. I would think that this means either a) transaction costs increase or b) it becomes unprofitable for many miners to run their rigs, leading to more consolidation of giant operations with preposterously cheap electricity.

Who is clamoring for that, and are blockchains + POW the optimal way to do that? I'd argue the frameworks of Certificate Transparency could probably get you most of the way there

They have ownership of that particular NFT, in the same way that you can own a baseball card.

No, buddy. Either you're completely deluded or you really don't understand what you're saying. That baseball card I found in my old closet in my parents' house two weeks ago while visiting? I own that. It's a real, physical thing. I could sell it, I could keep it, I could set it on fire. My ownership of that card in no way requires a group of people to get together and collectively agree I own it. My access to that card only requires me to physically walk over and pick it up. If you were to try and take my baseball card, the law would punish you. None of that is true about NFTs.

With NFTs, the company can give up some ownership but allow resales (which most don't these days), which is another revenue base.

Except they don't. They might tell you they do, but they don't. Because when they shut down their servers, it's all gone. You don't own anything. You just have a receipt. Same as I do for my ships in Star Citizen. Which I can totally "sell" and transfer to another player. And my ships will be just as gone if CIG decides to shut down the servers or just ban me because they didn't appreciate my Chris Roberts/Elon Musk slashfic. You are deluding yourself by thinking any of this is different or real. You are being swindled, and you've swallowed the bait hook-line-and-sinker.

I would like a platform where we can talk about subjects, even controversial subjects, even subjects some find offensive.

You're free to make that platform. Literally no one is stopping you.

Right now it seems that there is a mainstream narrative that if questioned you're ridiculed and called names and if you make arguments good enough that people start thinking you may be right, your ideas, and maybe you, are deemed dangerous and your speech is shut down.

You're right, those in power have the legal rights to shut down dissenting opinions, and they do, especially when they make convincing arguments.

Except that's not what's happening, not in reality.

My argument is that if companies have legal protection (Section 230) that says that they are not publishers and the content isn't theirs, they're just the platform.

Except Section 230 doesn't make some sort of "publisher/not publisher" distinction and instead explicitly allows website owners to moderate user content as they see fit. That's kind of the whole point of the law. Without it their choices would be either to not allow user content or allow all user content completely without moderation, as anything else would be lawsuit fodder.

Any publically traded company has to answer TO the public.

What does that sentence even mean? No they don't. They answer to their shareholders. The 'public' can just not use their services if they're unhappy.

Corporate monopolies do not have a right to lock anybody out

I don't recall any discussion of monopolies.

If you are shrilling for wither at this point, you are simply shilling for corporate monopolies. You should probably disclose who's paying you to shill for scumbags.

This is rapidly becoming incoherent. Did you respond to the right person? Did you respond on the right article?