> It's possible to help create something and yet hate nature the creation.

Sure, but people who hate their creation tends to not claim credit for it.

For that matter, I find that people who can create don't tend to get hung-up on their old creations, be they good or bad - they're just busy creating new things. On the other hand, if someone can't create, and they were lucky to be involved in the creation of something big but lost control - they can spend a lifetime being bitter.

According to his wikipedia page, he was laid off and left Wikipedia one year after its creation in 2002, and since then, he's been either working on a competing project or attacking Wikipedia, or both. Yet he seems to refer to himself as "Wikipedia co-founder" in his book.

Unions for tech so we have a political voice to modulate technology in favor of humanity is probably one of the most important functions() a technology union could have.

Reducing any corruption, for it is the anathema of civilization. I wonder how many pro-freedom initiatives could be had if we all weren't so Pwned.

I cunt reed ore rite.

I dunno, it could be kind of funny watching them trying to get a machine to make sense of reality.

I've considered your statement. I can see where insanity and morality are orthogonal but I cannot see a situation where a sane person would do something immoral if they have a choice of other options, to do so would be not be sane. If a sane person is forced into a situation where they do something immoral, that is no longer a question of morality, it is a question of coercion. A sane person cares about consequences to others and an insane person does not.

I'm not being a dick here. I'm wondering if you have thought about this position enough to back it up with a rational argument. I have given you the first example of how to define morality as an objective reality. I can offer you a way to test your statement as a thought exercise.

If a generally moral person does a immoral thing are they a immoral person? If a generally immoral person does a moral thing are they a moral person? What is the differences between them?

I'm genuinely curious about your statements and perspective.

How so?

That's what insane is. Basic principles of morality "Do no harm" and "Take action to prevent harm" mean nothing to someone who is insane.

Just how insane he is.

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those ;)

Including gravity, which turns out is a major obstacle. One reason to go to the moon to to test build a Moon stalk, which is a lot easier to test and build on the moon than a Terrestrial Space Elevator. A Moon stalk is within our technological grasp and space will probably provide the technological opportunities we need to create new materials technology that would allow us to create a Space Elevator. That would dramatically reduce mass to orbit costs.

Absolutely this is the goal. Oxygen is four times the mass of methane IIRC, produce it in the moon and you eliminate launching a lot of mass into space from Earth. That's why B.O's second stage is hydrogen fueled and their lunar lander project is testing tech to extract oxygen from lunar regolith. If you look at their tech closely you can see how they're trying to build an orbital supply chain for fuel.

and hope their hydra-zine fuel launchers don't come down on a village or a city. The Chinese successfully combine the worst aspects of capitalism and communism together in terms of their regard for the everyday Chinese citizen. It's a terrifying thought that that may control access to space or the moon. I hope they change their ways.

A day or so ago Blue Origin had a launcher explode on the pad for a spin prime test IIRC. I'd bet it was probably the second stage considering the last launch also had a second stage failure that failed to put it's payload into orbit and we've had no news on what happened to NG-3's second stage or where it's coming down.
That's not a criticism of Blue Origin, New Glen is needed. It's context on how second stages are hard to produce because they have to operate in zero gravity. So far N.G has had two, IIRC, second stages operate, however this last failure will probably put them back by about a yes.

So B.O is externalizing big risks launching customer payloads knowing this is the case, reason being is their competition for Starlink, LEO has federally mandated deadlines for them to launch otherwise they loose their license to operate it.

Now contrast this with SpaceX's approach, 12 launches whose multiple goals include testing second stages in zero gravity environments that destroy the hardware as an expected result. So even though they haven't launched a commercial payload yet with StarShip, the real payload is the operational experience they get from each launch.

I think B.O will catch up because they have a re-useable first stage for a stack that offers greater flexibility than SS however SX is simply proving that there is no substitute for the experience of operating space craft in space.