805 karma · joined January 4, 2011
Also keep in mind that due to the dangers of radiation, the denizens of a lunar or Martian colony would not be outside that often. The most realistic plans I've seen actually have the habitats completely underground (e.g. in lava tubes on the moon [1]). Certainly a few of the colonists will leave on science missions with some frequency, but the vast majority of the time people will be inside and underground, albeit probably tele-operating mining equipment and things like that in many cases.
I think if you think big enough, in both cases the problem isn't that bad: being in an underground habitat / cloud habitat the size of a small town will feel like you're on solid ground, not like you're in an airplane in the clouds / in a cave. Artists and architects can design artificial landscape to keep things from being boring.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_lava_tube#Sites_for_huma...
- Closer than Mars
- 90% of Earth gravity (compared to 30% for Mars)
- Atmospheric shielding mass equivalent to Earth's (protected from solar radiation, unlike Mars)
- Large amounts of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid, with some other trace gasses. You can make fuel, extract water and grow plants from that.
- At 50km altitude, you have ~1atm of pressure, and breathable air is a lifting gas, so you can put a balloon full of air up there and it will float and support a good amount of extra weight. If it punctures then it will just slowly leak, not explosively decompress.
- Temperature ranges from 27-75C, so thermal issues are pretty easy.
- Ample solar influx for power.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus
Obviously you're floating in the air, so you'd have to bring in metals and minerals externally, e.g. from earth or via asteroid mining, or maybe in the future we could build machinery capable of mining the surface despite its brutal conditions. Or, you know, forests in balloons that you gather timber from.
So yeah, "build a cloud city on Venus" is definitely a crazy idea, but not nearly as infeasible as "terraform Mars" I think! Furthermore, as this paper demonstrates, there are some incredibly interesting and unresolved scientific questions that justify going (as if the sheer beauty of "cloud cities on Venus" is not reason enough!)
Obviously, the $99/year isn't making Apple a lot of money. But what it is doing is creating a culture of acceptance around Apple-as-gatekeeper. The iOS app store is most certainly making Apple a non-trivial amount of money (yes I know its a small percentage of their total at the moment.)
The ethical problem on macOS is that Apple is imposing artificial technical barriers to push people to pay Apple what amounts to "protection" money.
On iOS, there is no reasonable way to bypass the app store for the vast majority of users.
Second, Apple most definitely does "impede" the installation of apps downloaded independently by requiring you to perform an obscure dance to execute them.
Moreover, Apple is far from the cleanly ethical choice you seem to think it is. It blocks or impedes the installation of software that it has unilaterally decided is against its interests + takes a ludicrous percentage of revenue via the App Store.
I think Apple is going to use this to differentiate its native app offerings from competing web apps, particularly Google's web apps, so I doubt they put much effort into that.