bandyaboot

If using “1700s”, I’d write it as “art of the 1700s”.

Yeah that makes sense when you explain it like that.

It’s a bit difficult to parse the analogy since you’re comparing something that has never been done (and is a notoriously difficult technology to crack) to something that had been done by many others, many times. But, even so, and despite the lack of specific information about the test/achievement, I have a feeling you’re over selling this by quite a bit. If you want to compare to spacex, I’d say it’s more like the first time they demonstrated that they could control a re-entering booster stage with grid fins—a notable step to booster reuse.

You could, but as described that would be a crime (almost certainly multiple crimes). Fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, just to name a few avenues that a prosecution could pursue.

I’m curious to know what you’re thinking as far as what bad outcome(s) will or may result from people choosing this over some other password manager.

Ideally you want the iterative lesson learning to wrap up before you put the humans inside.

It seems like a lot of people are making too much out of the fact that the ship survived re-entry. On a test flight, the difference between “the heat shield failed around the flap causing severe structural damage, but it held together enough to make it through re-entry” and “the heat shield failed around the flap ultimately resulting in a RUD” is not particularly significant. The implication for both is that there are major engineering challenges yet to be solved for managing re-entry. Don’t get me wrong, this was a successful (and wildly entertaining) test flight and I think SpaceX will get re-entry sorted out.

That probably would have costed them multiple extra years of development time to accomplish that.

It’s actually possible for members of the team to be capable of doing “actual work” in addition to being good communicators.

Why stop there? Require all users to agree to a chip implant that injects ads into users’ consciousness.

The initial resemblance really just comes down to 2 fairly pragmatic design decisions. We’ll use 2 side solid propellant boosters and we won’t redesign them from scratch because they work. And, we’ll use the same foam insulation on the rocket that we used on the STS liquid propellant tank because it also works…furthermore, we won’t try to paint over the orange insulation because we know that that doesn’t work very well.

Agree that the criticism is overall well-founded, but this one is a bit strange:

> SLS looks like someone started building a Space Shuttle and ran out of legos for the orbiter

Should the booster look different just for the sake of looking different?

What’s going on with the center monument in photo 13? Is that a testament to the importance of taking some time for one’s self?

“That’s all really amazing, but I’m having trouble with the thing you said about how despite all of this half the country thinks things are terrible?”

“Yeah, but get this, the half that thinks things are terrible regularly flips and vice-versa.”

“Really? What’s changing so drastically?”

“Nothing. Let’s talk about microchips.”

Yeah, this article is very strange. The debate should be about whether the law is appropriate. This email adds nothing to that debate.

They should also sell a model that includes a pair of fake feet that sort of kick at the surface to complete the illusion that you’re a freak of nature.

No. If they were trying to accomplish what you were suggesting, you kill the first whistleblower early on to prevent others. That motive doesn’t make sense after there are already 30 whistleblowers.

> This seems not far off from Q-Anon on the other side of the political aisle.

You either didn’t pay much attention to the sheer insanity of Q-Anon, or you view the world through an extremely partisan lens. Mentioning these two things in the same sentence is itself insane.

> Democrat-Party

I’ll put my money on option 2.

Wouldn’t they want to carry out their whistleblower deterrence operation before there were already 30 other whistleblowers?

The more I thought it through, even assuming x86, I guess there’s just no “correct” way to casually reference bit positions when we read them in the opposite order from the machine. Are they being referenced from the perspective of a human consumer of text, or the machine’s perspective as a consumer of bits? If I were writing that content, I’d have a difficult time deciding on which to use. If I were writing for a lay person, referencing left-to-right seems obvious, but in this case where the audience is primarily developers, it becomes much less obvious.

> In the most popular character encoding, UTF-8, character number 65 ("A") is written:

> 01000001

> Only the second and final bits are 1, or "on".

Isn’t it more accurate to say that the first and penultimate bits are 1, or “on”?

This is my personal favorite.

We need a specification for the forced extinction of markup languages that fail to gain traction.

> Australia's rationale amounts to "we need to control your reality so that you don't get out of control".

Why have you concluded that this is their rationale?

Written by people who would likely disavow the movie entirely if they did 5 minutes of research on the Wachowskis.

> To end the meeting, Michael Cole, 66, a maintenance worker, leads the group in the Walmart Cheer, a chant workers throughout the company do to start and end meetings.

This can’t be real.

The phrase “going postal” was coined for the truly 10/10 disgruntled government employee.

> The statement that it was thrown away is factually incorrect.

I get coming on here to correct the record, but why the hostility toward the author when the factually incorrect statement was made to him by someone at VCF? Or are you suggesting he’s lying about what he was told?

> As a former warehouse volunteer at VCF in Wall, NJ, I can attest that this blog post consists of only conjecture and no facts.

The single most important piece of information in the blog post is that he was told the materials were disposed of. That’s either true, or is a lie—I fail to see an interpretation of that that could be called “conjecture”.