dfgknionio

If you have a brilliant technical solution that requires throwing out all conventional economics, you don't have a brilliant technical solution. Bitcoin is rotten to its core and every excuse you make for it proves the point.

>For most of human history the money was stable.

Absolutely ridiculous. People have been counterfeiting and debasing money for as long as there has been money.

The shuttle had reusable boosters, but if you are talking about something reusable that takes off and lands vertically you are correct that it isn't 1980s technology.

It's 1990s technology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X?useskin...

No one denies that SpaceX has done good work. But claiming that they have done anything others considered impossible is just wrong. The basic principles had been demonstrated decades before.

You are correct that people criticized the economics. Seeing as SpaceX's prospectus shows their rocketry business loses money, I am not convinced they're winning that argument.

"Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" is part of the definition of genocide. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted in 1951, so it is strange to claim this idea comes from modern leftists.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...

You can look over the commission's report here:

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...

The commission mentions the attack only briefly, does not seem to rely on the notion that embryos have rights, and finds that the IDF deliberately targeted the clinic. This event is irrelevant to discussion of abortion in the USA and the commission did not say what you claim it said.

>reusable rockets would never work

I am so fucking tired of people acting like we haven't had reusable rockets since the 1980s. Do you think I was hallucinating when my parents drove me to Florida to see Columbia?

Look at this picture:

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!5kYm!,f_auto,q_auto:...

Which side is modern and which is traditional? The examples on the right are clearly more modern than the examples on the left to my eye: the left looks like it's from the '70s while the right is unmistakably 21st century. But the examples on the left are run-down, plain, and feature advertisements and bricked-up windows and steel shutters and security doors, while the examples on the right are brand new and shiny and walkable. There's graffiti in the first example and in the last one they replaced the asphalt with pavers!

Hard to take the conclusions seriously when the authors have their thumbs on the scale.

This is kind of a fool's errand given that sample sizes are small and there are large exogenous causes. But the pattern is consistent and agrees with theory, so I think the comparison is worth making anyway.

What is the point in having a colony of maybe dozens of people completely dependent on shipments from Earth? Building a self-sustaining colony is so far outside the realm of possibility that it isn't worth thinking about, and building a symbolic outpost serves no practical purpose.

Even if you think a space industry is useful in general, there is no reason for humans to be involved. Robots are superior to humans for this application today and will only become more superior in the future.