I'm getting $389.99 w/free shipping though. Might be your location?

You're right that "easy to handle" is actually a pretty big concern for rockets, which is why we're moving away from hydrogen and more towards methane.
Methane doesn't require anywhere near as cold of a temperature as hydrogen, meaning that a lot of concerns about things like freezing the oxygen goes away, such that while theoretically a hydrogen engine would have more energy and thus thrust by mass, in practical terms, methane often beats it because the rocket itself can be simpler and lighter.
As far as N6 goes, the trick with this would be that it is a "monopropellant", IE you only need to pump one tank to a thruster to fire it. With hydrogen, methane, or kerosene, you need to pump an oxidizer there as well. So the engine can be drastically simplified because you only need one intake.
However, with energy density there's the critical difference between a monopropellant (a TNT powered rocket engine would technically be a monopropellant, because it carries its own oxidizer), and rocket fuels like methane and kerosene, in that for a rocket, you need to add the mass of the oxygen back in. For RP-1, for example, that's around 2.2 (they usually run a bit fuel rich over stochiometric* because it improves thrust). Yes, it turns out that most rockets carry more LOX by mass than fuel.

For those interested, actual figures:
TNT: 4 MJ/kg
N6: ~8 MJ/kg per the article.
Methane: 55 MJ/kg (15 MJ/kg including oxidizer, ratio of ~2.7 to 1)
Hydrogen: 144 MJ/kg (21-24 MJ/kg, ratio of 5-6)
RP-1/Kerosene: 35 MJ/kg (10.9 MJ/kg, ratio of 2.2)
(Oxidizer ratios pulled from actual rockets)

Given the number of practical rockets (for example, Falcon) using RP-1, 8 MJ/kg for a monopropellant that only puts out N2 would be very interesting.
From my reading, low molecular weight in the exhaust is a good thing (but relatively minor factor compared to other stuff). Which might also by why hydrogen rockets are a thing despite the hassle of H2.

N2: 28 g/mol
H2O: 18 g/mol
CO2: 44 g/mol
CH4: 16 g/mol (running rich, remember? So it is in the exhaust)
H2: 2 g/mol
RP1: 321 g/mol (which might be a reason to run O2 rich for these rockets)
O2: 32 g/mol
*stochiometric: The ratio to completely combust both chemicals. Running fuel rich means some of the fuel remains unoxidized.

So very, very many lies.

"Just "come here legally" - it's so simple" it really IS that simple. Why didn't they do it that way, again?

""being in the US illegally" is only a civil offense." and? As I said, Illegal.

"your entire economy is built around the existence of these people" - yeah, we probably shouldn't have let them flow in like water, eh?

"who subsidize your government paying taxes on services they're legally barred from collecting" so they pay income tax?

"creating vastly more wealth than they're paid (which then goes back into your economy, because economies are not zero-sum games)" - of which what, 80% flows to their home countries?

"They're also disinflationary, lowering the costs of goods and services" Ah yes, the famous Adam Smith maxim of "more demand = lower prices"

"tend to work in fields that have chronic massive labour shortages (ag, food processing, construction, etc - there's generally a huge labour deficit there)." again, chicken and egg.

"look at what happened to inflation the world over in the years following the COVID pandemic" not sure if you're disingenuous or just stupid. The US gov't vomited "quantitative easing" cash for 2 years. That caused inflation, the 'slashing of production'?

"II the (up to) 3 million a year let in by Mr Biden's open-Democrat-voter, er, -border policy,
That conspiracy theory is (A) illegal, and (B) logistically unfounded.
Illegal immigrants cannot vote (ad nauseum)"
Surely Democrats had a reason for leaving the borders open and functionally unguarded for years? Simultaneously pushing in every state they control to make sure illegals get things like drivers licenses. Oh and - 100% resisting at every turn the requirement to provide ID to vote. Why?
Funny how those things line up to point to what, again?

"Lastly, the "three million per year" number is itself mythical."
https://usafacts.org/articles/...
From 250k per mo mid 2021 to nearly 400k/mo end 2023.
And yes it's "encounters" in the same sense "illegals" are redefined to "undocumented".
Not to mention, it's ALL inferred - you know we don't have a list of the people who AREN'T CAUGHT, right?

Ah, so 'defending people you don't like' as long as they're the people *you* like?

Not at all intellectually incoherent!

That the court later fixed it is indeed laudable. (Thanks to a conservative majority, let's note)

That the GOVERNMENT believed it was perfectly reasonable as a 'first move' is precisely what I'm getting at.

Nonsense.
Powder River basin (MT) has large, quite shallow layers of vast amounts of coal - that's why they use open-pit mines. Those could still quite readily be mined by hand-labor.

Oil (shrug) not really for the US, what we have is only really accessible through very high tech means.
And "forests are self-limiting"...you mean those forests that sustained temperate human habitation up to the 18th century?

The point is that - again, unless you get your wished-for 'deaths of billions' - societal collapse is going to INSTANTLY throw eco-consciousness in the wastebin. You won't get your utopia, it will be the 19th centurly all over again, with steam engines and roiling smokestacks pouring particulates into the sky.

Indeed! I saw plenty of skeletal jaw/teeth masks, floral prints, don't remember seeing the rolling stones one, but wouldn't have minded one bit.

I wear print T-shirts all the time, so why not?

Just don't go with the heavy iron-on type decals if they're too big, stick more to tie-die jobs that still let the fabric breath. You are trying to suck air through it.

Hahahahah.
An advocate of "Crash on Demand" I see.

The fundamental failing of eschatological environmentalists "if only society would collapse (and if we're being totally honest, billions of humans die) so we can all become Thoreau-ian Noble Savages living in harmony with nature and this time rebuilding society along the lines I want!"... is that you can't comprehend that environmentalism is a pure LUXURY.

If you're starving, you will cheerfully kill the last of that endangered Puffin for some meat. If your children are freezing, you are *absolutely* going to chop down the forest for wood or throw more chunks of coal on the fire because it's the easiest fuel you can find. You're going to build your town as close to the waterline as you can get away with because dragging your boat into the water and the catch (oh look, a dolphin! Yummy!) back up to your house is back breaking hard work every day and you don't give the faintest fuck that the sea may rise 1cm in 100 years.

Perhaps you were too busy being snarky to recognize the real economic realities in your cliche.

"No price is to high to replace labor"
Literally, simply, factually true.
It's called the Industrial Revolution for a reason. It too was about replacing human labor with mechanical devices. While it was disruptive and painful (and there remain consequences we are still dealing with), only the most inveterate Luddite would insist it wasn't worth it to humanity generally.

AI is - potentially - the same. If there are legions of workers* that can be replaced effectively by unsleeping algorithms, they will be. $15/hr x 250hr per year x 30 million people = about $100bn per year. That's asymptotically close to "priceless" to me?

*Ironically, as the industrial revolution was inevitable but was probably triggered/accelerated by nascent concerns for the human rights of the workers, AI/automation has likely advanced in corporate agendas due to the explosion of bottom tier payrolls by the push to $15/hr

It's critical to inject class warfare everywhere even where completely irrelevant?

Part of the problem is that "guilt" isn't a one dimensional metric, that you have it to some degree or you don't.

It's a vast, multidimensional, dynamic thing. Further, today, there seems to be a growing insistence that guilt isn't even solely a personal thing, but that we are told we must as moral actors project our contrition across time and space to others with whom we have no meaningful connection.

As we see in human society "what we are supposed to feel guilty about" seems to be pretty much the core argument, and, if the Internet is any measure, can even lead to whether some people consider others worth treating as human or not.

George Floyd is a perfect example. .
There are two versions of the same event, depending on the reductionist binary moral (political) framework in the US today:
1) a (white) (cop) deliberately killed an (innocent*) (black person)
2) a (cop doing his job)(following the official procedure he was trained in) led inadvertently to the death of (violent ex felon)(whose system was full of fentanyl)
Curiously... All the parentheticals are true. Depending on which set of parentheticals you apply, determines which "side" you're on and who "your side" allows you to justifiably dehumanize.

It is a great example of a morally-colored event where justifications of outrage and even violence hinge not simply on facts, but how they are presented.

*âinnocent" of anything justifying the final result. He was passing counterfeit $20s; I think sane people on either side would agree that doesn't merit death. One very tiny non grey area of moral agreement in a terrible story that has had huge repercussions.

Because it used to be that principle sometimes required defending people you don't like, cf the ACLU defending racists right to have their KKK parade, in defense of freedom of speech for all.

That you're too stupid to understand how that works is absolutely on brand for 2025 where 3/4 of the people seem to live in a state of hypocritical denial.

"Closing schools is an interesting matter for a different reason. It had never been done before, so the effects (especially social) were unknown ... "

All else being equal, I'm uncomfortable with (and every political sense I have is triggered) when public officials flex their " emergency powers" muscles to err on the side of the totalitarian choice. You know "for your own good".

This changes their role from public service and leadership (which is ostensibly why they were elected) to rulership (which we & they all kinda suspected).

That they, as the elite class, turned out to have broadly exempted themselves from their rules is utterly unsurprising. That in many cases their rules were made/applied in nakedly political ways (you can't go to church, but you can go to a black lives matter protest - I'm not sure why churches didn't try to game that particular bullshit) just reinforced my fundamental suspicion of upper levels of government and the self-empowering vermin that infest it.

You know, this is almost like one of those equations where you have a factor, but as you work through it, the factor is neutralized, turning out to not matter in the end?

Remember how I said "If getting non-infected people to wear masks despite the minimal benefits gets the infected to, it is worth it."

I mean, if them wearing masks makes the potentially infected maskless uncomfortable to the point that they put on the mask, then wearing it is actually still protecting them, just from secondary effects.

Plus, while the effects are minimal for a cheap reusable mask compared to a N95, they still protect the wearers some.

Everybody wearing their masks thus does indeed reduce the chances of them getting COVID.

I'm still going to disagree - masks helped reduce the spread. That's very much public health, because public health worries less about the individual and more the group, the "public" part. Fewer people infected is good, thus not theater.

Theater was things like the people wearing masks with holes cut in them.

From a public health standpoint, keeping asymptomatic carriers from infecting others is very much NOT theater. Anything that reduces the infection or spread rate is an effective control. Whether it is cost effective is a different matter, but cloth masks are cheap.
If getting non-infected people to wear masks despite the minimal benefits gets the infected to, it is worth it.
And COVID doesn't have spores.