DemocracyFTW

* we do not have any kind of technology to get stuff back from orbit. Anything that is there and anything that we put into orbit will stay there, passively, until the laws of physics take care, the only exception being satellites that are made to plunge back into the atmosphere with their left over propellant. We cannot even hope to get meaningful amounts of plastics back from the surface of the oceans which is a similar problem only many, many orders of magnitude more feasible.

* When you put satellites into lower orbits you'll need more of them to obtain the same coverage of ground. At the same time, the volume of space is smaller in lower than in higher orbits, so more crowding. You can use smaller, less powerful satellites, but because of atmospheric drag, their lifetimes will presumably also more limited in low orbits, meaning considerably more additional traffic due to the increased need of de-orbiting and replenishing activities.

* Should anything go wrong (and something will go wrong sooner or later, as indicated by the fact that we already have to close keep tabs on the course of the ISS), a collision will spread parts into all directions. One would imagine that in LEO roughly half of the sky is occupied by nearby Earth, but the other half is pointing sideways or up from the Earth, so if two 100kg satellites smash into each other you still have like ~100kg of new debris that will fly into directions not prone to natural fast decay. Of course this is just a rough estimate on which I'd like to be proven wrong.

* Low orbit and increased number of objects also mean more interference with astronomy. I cannot believe when folks claim that now that we 'have AI' we can just 'use AI to clean up astronomical imagery'. Our entire ability to put stuff (and people) into space at all is predicated on many, many millennia of gazing up to the skies and trying to figure things out. No astronomy, no going to space. When you take an image and there's an object blocking the view, or worse adding a very considerable amount of reflective light that saturates your sensors, no amount of 'AI' will get back that info to you because the data is, essentially, just not there.

"Dubai Is A Parody Of The 21st Century" by Adam Something https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJuqe6sre2I

> What would you build on top of it?

I'd go for something big and heavy...

Senior Oops Engineer @ReinH

Nov 5

a way you can use NFTs to improve hiring is you ask the candidate if they own any NFTs and if they say yes you don't hire them

You'll learn and earn on-chain credentials

You’ll use your credentials to prove who you are, what your skills are and what people say about you

You can't hide from the blockchain ;)

How it will work:

- You apply for a job - It scans the blockchain and rates your set of on chain experiences and credentials - If above a certain rating, you’re hired within 60 seconds

No prejudice, no wasted time, no pain

This, to put it mildly, is simplifying the affair a bit. Whoever endures a lot of "quests, adventures and courses" on the internet in front of their computers may be a good candidate for e-sports or online gambling. Any person who has a moderately engaging life in the real world or is aged > 40 will, in this discipline, be put in by an army of nimble kids, otakus and net junkies. The idea that we can and should replace real-world interactions with "the cyber" and that this is a good idea for everyone is bonkers, yet—like "the blockchain" and the "OMG digitalization OMG must optimize this process quick OMG these people still work manually just think of the children OMG digitize digitize OMG the gainz OMG" meme—draws people in with its sweet smell like a rotting apple draws in fruit flies.

The other big thing here is of course that yeah, ok, once I have a number of credentials in my favor (on the blockchain whatever doesn't matter really) then it's a simple matter of 60 seconds to just look whether my rating is above a certain threshold and boom!—hired you are. If that's the case, if hiring someone is just about mechanically checking the boxes and do a sum over a few numbers, why should it take all of 60s to hire me? I want that job now you see, means now! I think the truth is rather that (1) you have to check and weigh different skillset combos against whatever you surmise might be advantageous for a given position, which is in itself difficult to get right, and then (2) square that with an assessment how a myriad of other factors might play out. I don't think it's a solved problem; I think there's a huge interest on the side of big-corporate employers to "optimize" the process (i.e. throw a computer at the wall and hope it sticks), not least to reduce costs in the HR dep. There's an incentive for the hoi polloi to buy into this, too, and since we now know how wide a base there is for believing in flat earth and injecting bleach, why not this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvK2i9Jxy5c

https://www.youtube.com/c/AdamSomething/videos

You are no doubt referring to the Brandenburg state premier who entered into totally democratic secret negotiations with Tesla and then presented the imminent construction of the factory as fait accompli to his surprised electorate?

If we want to fight climate change and reduce emissions, we'd better not switch from fossil fuel SUVs to luxury EVs, but rather turn to alternatives like living more locally, and using trains a lot more. But that step is not what is being promoted, surprise, and it's also not a step that many people are ready to do. They fiercely identify with their vehicles and can become quite aggressive whenever one threatens to make owning a car more expensive. At least, should climate change 'happen one day' (/s), they'll have a car to drive somewhere else (again, /s).

You quoted me wrong, and frankly 'disingenuous' sounds like an objectively incorrect vocab choice. Apart from that I confess that I speak from experience gained with a small sample size (around 1), and things may differ with each person.

What's more, I assume neither you nor I have done any rigid testing in this matter. 1500 kanji in 60 days does sound a lot, so good for you. However you cannot say with confidence what the future retention rate will be, nor do you (strictly speaking) know how you would have fared with any other approach. Also consider recognition of kanji (and their correct readings) in actual texts and recognition of artistic, calligraphic, handwriting styles; no idea where I'm standing on those but I do feel I have some kind of grip. Training for the latter does include looking at lots of calligraphic samples, and I do repetitively write some of those, too; it's hard to gauge how much either of these activities contribute to the learning effort.

If you want your handwriting to look acceptable, then proper stroke order is an absolute must. When you go further and learn cursive and grass script, then you'll get to learn multiple stroke orders per character (and hundreds of conventionalized doodles for components and whole characters).