That whole rant makes not the slightest bit of sense.
Nice story, but why would any of that be true? Truth aside, it does not make a logical argument.
What are you trying to say? It happened once? Every police force is the same?

You could use an incoherent rant like that to argue against anything. You'd ban the use of paper.

Human witnesses are even less reliable. I'll avoid the toxic race politics there, but when there was a basis of truth to the "dark skin" thing, it also applied to pale skin. White people had to wear brown makeup on camera. But modern cameras are much better at picking contrast over a wide brightness range. Do you think black people still can't be photographed clearly? They aren't vampires.

The fundamental argument for visible, public facial recognition is not about creating a dystopian surveillance state; it is about recreating the high-trust environment of a small town on a larger scale.
      In a traditional small town, people leave their front doors unlocked, shops don’t have security screens, and bus drivers don’t sit behind bulletproof glass. This layout thrives not because small towns are magically free of people with criminal intent, but because of a simple psychological reality: any potential criminal knows they will be immediately recognised, identified, and caught.
Anonymity is the lifeblood of public crime. By pairing visible security cameras with facial recognition in spaces where there is already no legal expectation of privacy, we strip away that anonymity, replacing it with a digital version of the "watchful neighbour."

We are currently forcing our cities to choose between two types of security: physical barriers or digital accountability:

• Without smart digital accountability, we get physical fortification: bulletproof glass for bus drivers, locked-down grocery aisles, security screens, and gated communities. This makes public spaces feel hostile, suspicious, and fragmented.
• By utilizing visible facial recognition in public areas (where courts have long established there is no expectation of privacy), we can keep our physical spaces open, welcoming, and accessible. We trade ugly, restrictive physical barriers for seamless, invisible accountability.

We don't lock our doors because we want to live in a fortress; we lock them because anonymity protects the wrongdoer. By using visible, clearly marked facial recognition in public spaces, we eliminate that anonymity. We aren't destroying privacy - since no privacy exists on a public street - we are restoring the accountability of the small town, where the community is safe precisely because everyone is seen.

Postscript: above is putting the pro side. I know some here are unfamiliar with civilised debate, and will get angry, so I'll append that I'm not unaware of the dangers of this technology, and the need to mitigate them. I recognise the legitimate concerns people in different cultures, such as the civil rights history in the US. But Americans already have widespread facial recognition, its just outsourced to private companies like Meta, Palantir and Clearview. Is that better than regulated police use?
Perhaps the issue in the US is the fragmented nature of the policing system, with many small local forces acting without accountability. Would it be any better if facial recognition was limited to state and Federal police, where there would be better oversight? But now I remember the history of the FBI, so Americans' fear is understandable.
For different reasons, Germans may fear such tech is a single step away from a surveillance state.

What is the logic there? How do you get from "police have misused it" to "police should be banned from using it"? I feel a few steps are missing.

Are you going to ban everything that has ever been misused? I'm looking to see somebody make a better argument that that. Or is "truthiness" enough?

There was a shockwave visible before the fireball, but kind of small compared to the conflagration.

Wooooshhh!!! (at 2 levels)

SpaceX had a comparable anomaly ten years ago, when SLC-40 was destroyed along with the $200M AMOS-6 satellite.
It took 15 months to rebuild.
So I figure 3 years for BO.

You have not seen the modern version of that? Bobby is all grown up and has a son now.
He is little Billy Ignore Instructions

https://www.reddit.com/r/Progr...

OK, now I am convinced that asdfgh is completely clueless. Anyone who has driven a car, or ridden a bicycle even, for any length of time can tell you that most human accidents happen at low speed. Parking, fender-benders, navigating tight spaces. Accidents at speed are more memorable, but far less numerous.
    Its remarkable how people of normal intellect can be turned into morons when hatred infects their brains. (And yes, Elon can certainly take a share of the blame for provoking it, but he does expose how anger makes people like the above say idiotic things.)

Wow, talk about hubris! Takes one to know one?
For some facts: landing on the moon is easier. Five nations have done soft landings on the moon. The Soviets did it in 1966. Only SpaceX has done propulsive soft landings from orbital velocity on Earth.

Zero orbits? This is not sub-orbital in the sense of John Glenn. Starship 12 was a whisker short of orbit for obvious safety reasons, "Color me clueless" would be more apt.

Which is not to say there are not still major challenges to a successful Artemis lunar landing, such as orbital propellant transfer.

That number they show is relative to launch site, so does not include the 400m/s from the earth's rotation.
Take that into account, and it is indeed very close. Like 5-10 seconds longer burn.

Even if such abstinence does not make you live longer, it is guaranteed to feel longer.

Anything that includes the Ship surviving reentry and making a soft landing right on target is a "great success".
While the failures of multiple new v3 raptors were disappointing, there was no RUD, and a massive trove of data generated.
Even the booster had full control until impact.

Flights so far have been within a whisker of orbit. Today's burn time was extended ~40 seconds to make up for running on only 5/6 engines, but it would only have needed another 5-10 seconds burn to get into a stable orbit.

However I very much doubt the next flight will be full orbit. They still need to sort out the raptor problems, and demonstrate reliable re-lighting of the engines in space, before risking such a heavy ship in orbit.
But if the next landing is as good as today's, maybe the first orbital will also be "return to launch site" and even a catch attempt?

In other news, ASUS management reports that as much as 40% of all sick leave is taken on a Monday or a Friday,

Microsoft embraced Linux years ago. And so far, no sign of "extend". WSL2 is awesome.
Nadella is no Balmer.