Deplatforming people doesn't boost their message though. You don't get the Streisand effect when its 1000 trolls instead of one famous person. Also the free market of ideas just hasn't proven effective at stopping harassment and worse. There's nothing illogical about what you've said, but the real world data just doesn't support your conclusions.
I mean yeah, it's a scary time to be a queer person. Lots of our rights and protections are under attack now in ways they weren't 5 years ago. I hadn't heard that kiwi farms was back up, that's deeply disappointing.
There's a lot of consideration of if we could, and previous little of if we should. Unmoderated sites inevitably become breading grounds for harassment and worse, especially as more mainstream platforms get better at driving this content away. I would be terrified to live in a world where kiwifarms and its ilk cannot be shut down
The point isn't that its one or the other, the point is that spending on social programs is much cheaper than national security programs and makes a more meaningful difference in more peoples lives. The point is that either-or is a false dichotomy, we can have good social safety nets and still have robust national security. The reason we don't have both isn't that we can't afford both, its that much of this country views poverty as a moral failing and intentionally neglects the poor because "they deserve it".
I think its reasonable to write off development costs, given that it was the first of its kind. This is why we have government funded research: to create technologies that would be too risky for any private company to pursue. The question shouldn't be "is it profitable to create the first one?", its "once we've solved the hard problems, can the industry be profitable?".
Not quite, it's causing someone to commit a crime they wouldn't ordinarily commit, so it all depends how pushy they were about it. If you could argue they coerced the contractors into doing the work, that's entrapment. But inviting them over under false pretenses and then simply asking them to commit a crime, while of questionable value to the community, isn't entrapment.
Oh the story behind that is a wild ride from start to finish. Babson's sister drowned when they were children, and he decided the real reason that happened is anti-gravity technology wasn't sufficiently advanced to prevent her drowning. He spent a large amount of his philanthropy funding anti-gravity research for the rest of his life.
Edit:
Just realized this is mentioned in the article you linked.
I thought the going rate for falcon 9 reusable launches was $60 million a flight. With 7 astronauts shouldn't that work out to $8.5 million per astronaut? That's not accounting for the cost of the crew dragon, but I'd be surprised if that increases the cost by an order of magnitude
Sure, but companies have a heck of a lot more bargaining power than individuals. I don't think "this didn't cause large numbers of employees to quit" means that this was okay.
Sorry, I may have worded that confusingly. The important number is 10,000 MSL. If you don't go above that you don't need ADS-B (as long as you stay out of the other airspace mentioned). They make an exception for people flying around high terrain, so if you are above 10,000 MSL but below 2,500 AGL then you are also exempt.
Even after 2020 ADS-B out won't be required in much of the airspace in the US. Only within 30 nautical miles of a class B airport, within the lateral limits of a class C airport, within class D airspace, and above 10k feet (but not below 2500 AGL I think). Even then, its only required for aircraft originally equipped with an alternator and electrical system (except in class B).
Basically, it's optional in most uncontrolled airspace and for older aircraft.
Eh, not really. It's an impressive piece of technology, but in the end it failed to realize the goal of low cost access to space through reusability. It made so many sacrifices to get reusability and the crossrange the air force wanted that it had many single points of failure and very limited abort options. This in turn required a very high degree of confidence that components would function as intended, which drove refurbishment costs through the roof.
Not to mention that far more than a lifetime has been collectively invested in it. Given its budget of $400M, and assuming an engineer costs roughly $1,000/day, we have about 1000 people-years invested in this project.
I don't think autopilot is included to improve their current product, but rather to give them a head start on full autonomy. I think the reason they've rolled it out is so they can crowdsource the testing of their software. I'm just speculating here, but I would guess that this has allowed them to collect vastly more test data than uber and waymo at a fraction of the cost and liability.
They are testing causation. The researches deprived subjects of sleep on predetermined nights and observed the results to be a buildup of this protein.
Not to mention even in all those areas (except A and B airspace), there are still aircraft exempt from the ADS-B requirement. The mandate only applies to aircraft certificated with an engine driven electrical system, so gliders and piper cubs and those sorts of aircraft will still need see and avoid.
Altitudes flown aren't independent of heading. Depending on whether you are VFR, IFR, flying magnetic east or west, you will fly at specified 500 foot increments.
Edit: I read up a little more about the accident, and it happened above where these rules apply. In any case, with problems like this where one plane isn't where it should be, I think the solution is to come up with better ways of ensuring clearances are complied with, not coming up with a system that is more tolerant of people violating clearances. Airspace is only going to get more congested and the only way do accommodate that safely is to have planes follow clearances to stricter and stricter tolerances.
>Political correctness and affirmative action are based on the idea that pretending the world is an ideal version of itself will eventually make it that way.
That is the opposite of how it works. Affirmative action is accepting that the world has bias against certain groups, and attempting to take that into account. Political correctness is about realizing that certain groups have been marginalized or traumatized and some words perpetuate that. In a perfect world neither are necessary.