avmich

I frankly don't understand how people who rent can use EV. The closest charger is 10 minutes away drive one way, not always available, takes a long time to charge, and I am talking about a big metropolitan area. Clearly EV proponents don't see all the consequences of owning an EV for the majority of people.

I didn't find - do they have three-state elements in addition to NANDs at the ends of buses or do they work differently?

Watch LLM start paying attention to data structures.

> That's fine, but are the supporters of this sure that this is the best way to do it?

As I understand, this is the best way to do which we have so far. We are welcome to find a better way while we're using this approach.

I think you might enjoy these stories - https://www.mrob.com/pub/math/largenum.html

I didn't have a particularly good view from 13:35 frames. TVC is a relatively simple subsystem, but it's there.

The thrust vector control (TVC) subsystem is usually considered a part of the engine. The major change the Soviet NK-33 underwent for a USA model was the addition of TVC, and the engine was named differently, so there are two engines, named differently, which mostly differ by the presence of TVC.

Raptors can be used without TVC. Be that by using differential thrust, or just not needing that - because rocket is controlled using other means, or other engines - it's possible. Tory Bruno specifically explained that he meant - among other things - that absence.

A picture of the engine working on the test stand can be that for the engine - or for the chamber, a significant component of the engine, with or without turbopumps involved.

Yes, but Everest brings back less in terms of science - it's a smaller place than space.

Moon was that in 1960s. Now we're talking about a McMurdo station, not a dash to the South Pole with temporary storages along the way.

The desire to fly to space can be compared with such for going to Everest, the place less hospitable than Cape York, yet having quite an interest from all sides. However, exploration of space could be way more practical than conquering the highest point on Earth - it serves scientific goals, and after science often come applications. There are many useful technologies which grew from space exploration and particularly from manned space programs, and we can expect those benefits to follow those who keeps studying space and learning to live close to the object of study.

We're just starting an energetic space exploration with appearance of better tools in the recent years. Getting to the Moon is relatively easy, and could be barely done with much more modest technology; now we plan a bigger scale program. Getting people to Mars is undoubtedly more complex, but still within reach of the existing - or almost existing - technology. Getting furter from Earth, while not immediately in the plans, may get just as possible and useful with time, and we shouldn't claim to know what could be our reasons tomorrow to visit, say, Ceres or Venus. There is no scientific impossibility for flying almist anywhere in Solar system - the matter is only in needs and economic costs. Our predecessors could be confused with our habits of flying between continents and islands the way we can and do today - similarly some of us may not see the immediate reason to leave Earth - that can pass, as past habits got changed to our current ones.

> If you aren't considered the author because you used AI to some extent in making the work, then why would you assume the liabilities?

Maybe some analogy could be with children - as a parent, you are responsible for their misbehavior, but their achievements are their, not your?

Non sequitur. Can't live in a society and be free of it.

The capabilities of my computer? I will unlikely go lower.

And if I have enough need, I will shop for more capabilities. Seems logical.

Fantastic book, great story, awesome memories. Thank you, Cliff.

TUIs are good for users, because they don't require using mouse as much - I didn't see this argument covered.

To me it feels like the difference in positions is "this could be made better" vs. "but this is already so much better than before". Both are right.

Maybe I'm missing something important so far...

You can't prove the theory by providing an agreeing example though.

That for some cases they are still all show doesn't prove everything is all show.

I would recommend https://github.com/yuri-panchul/basics-graphics-music to those looking to learn FPGA.

Write me alex.mikhaylov@stridentspace.com

We nevertheless have a concept of smartness and able to judge - imperfectly and subjectively - other people on this perceived dimension.

Take, for example, Elon Musk in SpaceX. Elon knew enough of rocket science to assemble the early team and participate as a self-assigned chief designer. In many cases such actions would qualify a person as a smart one.

Yes, it's hard to objectively measure - very hard perhaps. Yet we can still allow that some of those billionaires are smart at least by some reasonable measures.

My point is that the evaluation of Musk in that particular passage seem to be also subjective, and other people might have other opinions. We don't see good evidence here - and have some kind of counter-evidence elsewhere.

Why don't you think that those successful people - or at least some of them - are also very smart?

I think a good analysis should be done with numbers in text - or oral? - form. For this video, claiming that ~70 tons/sec needs that much more powerful pumps than Shuttle engine's 500 kg/s doesn't seem to mention the fact that power is proportional not only to flow, but to pressure difference as well; other questions could also appear.

If the companies find a new way to make their products cheaper to produce and their services cheaper to provide - will it lead to lower prices as well?

You're sure house prices are elastic here?

So you don't buy the POV the middle class is squeezed out of existence, almost?

Soviets were world leaders in liquid fuel rocket engines. They used oxygen-rich preburners in e.g very successful line of engines starting with RD-170. It was possible decades ago. And no downplaying.

Full-flow staged combustion is a rather logical - and not even particularly useful, we're talking about small percentage points - extension of staged flow combustion, and staged combustion is a rather obvious change to open-cycle schema - and I'm hyperbolizing just a little bit here.

Yes, it brings effects, and it's a cool technology. But saying that at least idea - or results - are fundamentally changing rocket engines... I think that's a stretch.

ISS collects ~250 kW solar power. All of that needs eventually to be dissipated - the energy removed by communication radiowaves is small. ISS routinely handles this thermal question for decades.

There is nothing magical with cooling in space. Just a different environment - a rather well studied already, we send satellites to space for some 70 years almost. Saying there is no solution is incorrect - we have options, we have numbers, we can point to concrete questions and answers.

Yes, but the point is to look for different representations, not necessarily use this specific one.

We can likely use different number representations for faster results. E.g. numbers in the form of coefficients to prime factors can be multipled at O(n) time, right?

No, that's not accurate.