I think it was the cost compared to the benefit IF the technology was there and there was no guarantee it was (or would be). I am on the left and I'm not against the idea per se, I just have to be convinced it's both feasible and effective.
He's 100% right. The money the spent on a Mars trip would be better served fixing our crumbling infrastructure. What's the point of sending humans to mars when people die from bad roads and failing bridges everyday?
Of course the same could be said about throwing trillions at the F-35.
One of the things that went wrong with X was that we tried to pull too much of the OS into X so that we could run on every old platform out there. Or to put it more bluntly, bending over backwards for fringe platforms
He seems to forget that Linux was once a "fringe platform". Sigh. https://archive.fosdem.org/2012/interview/kristian-hogsberg
I live in the next over from where they print the paper used on $1 bills. $1 bills are by far the most common demonination and it's loss would be economic disaster for the region. There is just no way to absorb all the workers who'd lose their jobs if Crane (who makes the paper) loses that amount of business from the government. On the top of that no Senator from Massachusetts would ever support it and a majority of the our Representatives wouldn't either.
I agree with the idea of dropping the dollar bill but it it would be a politcal and economic disaster for Massachusetts, thus won't happen for a long time, if ever.
Yes and no. Bands like Pink Floyd stopped officially releasing singles but the record companies carried on packing tracks as singles, because they could and helped the record sell. After the sixties the next official single release was "Another Brick In The Wall, Part Two" in 1979. Led Zepplin never released a single, the record company did that all on their own.