Still, Slashdot doesn't have to play along with their weasel wording. For example, "ergonomic collars that deliver an electric pulse" - just say "shock collar". Don't help them whitewash what they're talking about.

That's not what TFA said. It said "a family of three." That would, on the average, be 2 adults and a child. Two incomes, one dependent. Maybe that's what you're saying, but "supporting 3 people" makes it seem like you're talking about dependents.

Hah! It's so beautiful...

Not doubting this, but are there really 3.1 dialogs? I can think of multiple control panels and other screens that haven't seen much change since NT4, but my memories of 3.1 dialogs are getting hazy at this point!

Yes! I get the feeling there are more than a few people on Slashdot (and elsewhere) that just don't get this. Over the last few years I've had multiple Gen Z coworkers for whom installing the desktop version of MS Office is _literally_ the first software they have installed outside of a mobile app store.

The trouble with protondb is that there are gorillas out there that approach a gold rated game, then proudly display their 15 commandline options, some of which aren't actually real, and then declare the game was stuttering, unplayable, or doesn't even launch.

Yo. It launches. Quit screwing with stuff. Just doubleclick the button.

I have a distant family connection to Santa Fe and have visited a number of times. Lovely place.

What always strikes me is the history of the city and region. Founded in 1610, it's one of the earliest European cities in the Americas.

When reading the history of American Indian sites, so many of them prospered at times for decades (or more) and then declined with ecological shifts, i.e., droughts. The greater regional area had a population in the thousands or tens of thousands at most, and that fluctuated widely. The population of Santa Fe was as low as 5,000 people at the start of the 20th century. It was a small place! But, that's probably, realistically, a lot closer to the actual carrying capacity of the land.

Desert. Too many people. Not enough water.

Something has to give!

China has been a great success story in many, many ways, but they have now passed the point of "easy gains." Central planning, as with all things, works--until it doesn't. In retrospect, it seems like they held onto the one-child policy for too long.

China's population is massive and has historically been massive (relative to the rest of the world). When the Founders were signing the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia (population circa 30,000) and the 13 British colonies had a population between 1.5 and 2 million, China's population was probably over 300 million. Anything that happens in China is massive!

China should be commended for their efforts to grow the middle class, though I feel the evidence is not entirely there yet. China's population percentage that's middle class is still dramatically smaller than the EU, US, Japan, etc. Potentially even Russia. (The Soviet Union is another great success story for pulling an absolutely massive people out of literal serfdom and into the middle class.)

Today, China's total fertility rate is reported as one of the lowest in the entire world--0.93 in 2025. And that's if you believe the reported numbers. East Asia is being hit very, very hard by crashing reproductive rates. It's happening all over the world, but China, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, etc., have just crashed.

Stagnating can mean many things (population growth, cultural growth, scientific growth) and I'm talking specifically population as the rest is downstream of that.

You're confusing the importance of avoiding Kessler syndrome in LEO with the difficulty of causing Kessler syndrome. GEO debris can potentially remain there for millions of years before interactions between the gravitational pull of the Sun, Earth, and Moon sufficiently perturb it. LEO debris remains for weeks to months. You have to have many orders of magnitude more debris in LEO to trigger Kessler Syndrome, where the rate of collisions exceeds the rate of debris loss.

The fact that a LEO Kessler Syndrome would also be short is something that exists on top of that.

It's also worth nothing that not only are modern satellites not only vastly better at properly disposing of themselves than they were in the 1970s when Kessler Syndrome was proposed, but they're also vastly better at avoiding debris strikes. All of these factors are multiplicative together.

Lol, I was thinking of this instead ;)

People forget that the primary concerns about Kessler Syndrome were about geosynchronous orbit, which used to be where all the most important satellites went (many of course still go there, but not the megaconstellations). It takes a long, long time for debris to leave GEO. But LEO is a very different beast.

They said it's internal rather than a collision, so probably a failed COPV would be my guess.

Yeah. In particular:

with fragments likely to fall to Earth over the next few weeks

LEO FTW. Kessler Syndrome is primarily a risk if you put too much stuff with too poor of an end-of-life disposal rate in GEO. End-of-life without proper disposal rates have declined exponentially since Kessler Syndrome was first proposed (manufacturers both understand the importance more, and do a better job, of decreasing the rate of failures before deorbit - in the past, sometimes there wasn't even attempts to dispose of a craft at end-of-life). And now we're increasingly putting stuff in LEO, where debris falls out of orbit relatively quickly. It's not impossible in LEO, esp. with higher LEO orbits - but it's much more difficult.

Or to put it another way: fragments can't build up to hit other things if they're gone after just a couple weeks.

And this trend is likely to continue - a lower percentage of premature failures, and decreasing altitudes / reentry times. Concerning ever-decreasing altitudes, we've already been doing this via use of ion engines to provide more reboost (with mission lifespans designed for only several years before running out of propellant, instead of decades like the giant GEO ones), but there's an increasing interest in "sky skimming" satellites that function in a way somewhat reminiscent of a ramjet - instead of krypton or xenon as the propellant for an ion engine, the sparse atmospheric air itself is the propellant, so the craft can in effect fly indefinitely until it fails, wherein it quite rapidly enters the denser atmosphere and burns up.

ED: "But it doesn't work for gravity with linear curvature"

Relativity = gravity is represented by the curvature of spacetime. Curvature is linear, R. The formula treats curvature linearly. As things get closer and curvature spikes, the math just scales at a 1:1 rate

Quadratic gravity = Squares the curvature. Doesn't really change things much when everything is far apart, but heavily changes things when everything is close together.

Pros: prevents infinities and other problems when trying to reconcile quantum theory with relativity ("makes the theory renormalizable"). E.g. you don't want to calculate "if I add up the probabilities of all of these possible routes to some specific event, what are the odds that it happens?" -> "Infinity percent odds". That's... a problem. Renormalization is a trick for electromagnetism that prevents this by letting the infinities cancel out. But it doesn't work with linear curvature - gravitons carry energy, which creates gravity, which carries more energy... it explodes, and renormalization attempts just create new infinities. But it does work with quadratic curvature - it weakens high-energy interactions and allows for convergence.

Cons: Creates "ghosts" (particles with negative energies or negative probabilities, which create their own problems). There's various proposed solutions, but none that's really a "eureka!" moment. Generally along the lines of "they exist but are purely virtual and don't interact", "they exist but they're so massive that they decay before they can interact with the universe", "they don't exist, we're just using the math out of bounds and need a different representation of the same", "If we don't stop at R^2 but also add in R^3, R^4, ... on to infinity, then they go away". Etc.

The theory isn't new, BTW. The idea is from 1918 (just a few years after Einstein's theory of General Relativity was published), and the work that led to the "Pros" above is from 1977.