kanox

> surely there must be already a lot of trade studies on the next steps, and at least some rough plans.

Starship was always designed to refuel in Earth orbit, land on Mars, refuel on Mars and fly back to Earth in a single stage. This kind of architecture has never been attempted before and it has a lot of long-term implications for the design, for example the same reentry maneuver must work on two planets and orbital refueling is mandatory.

All other rocket designs consider "planetary landing" as something for the payload to worry about.

There are space companies other than SpaceX which participated in the same contracts and were nowhere nearly as successful.

* Boeing did not yet deliver commercial crew. * Antares rocket did not expand beyond ISS delivery. * Blue Origin is not yet flying, despite immense funding. * Virgin Galactic did not yet fly any customers.

The other great space launch success in the last decade was RocketLab but they're far too small to be relevant to SLS.

> vehicle looking for a purpose

While I agree that Starship is very much an early-stage project it has a clear commercial utilization: Starlink.

Assuming demand for Starlink is strong and SpaceX will be able to scale it up like crazy since Starship will give them far more LEO capability than anyone else.

The $146 million figure is specifically for new engines that are no longer designed to be reusable.

SLS is not "for science", it's a jobs program for Shuttle contractors.

Trump's attempt at forcing a sale of TikTok to an US company is state-sponsored banditry.

Before people jump on the Intel-bashing bandwagon I'd like to point out that this is very similar to clkscrew for arm socs: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurit...

Frequency scaling and power measurement should have no visible effects on execution, but in practice they do. The solution is to limit control to these knobs and degrade sensors.

Prisons containing too many people for bad reasons is a separate problem from prisons being violent.

TL;DR: People lie to pollsters.

> Targeted ads and recommendation engines need to be banned.

I don't see how you can "ban ads" without instituting totalitarian dictatorship.

Targeted arguments are a core part of political campaigning and polarization has been increasing in the US for decades, even before the internet.

My pet solution would to switch to a multi-party system that isolates rather than amplifies fringe voices. In germany people can look at what AfD and Die Linke have to say without having to choose between them.

It's not censorship if the post is still accessible. It's Twitter inc. expressing their opinion.

People are often perfectly willing to live with stigma. 70 million people did go and vote for Trump.

> They are responding to free speech with their own free speech.

Yes, this is unironically a good thing.

It means that Twitter is acting as a publisher rather than a neutral channel but nobody is willing to pretend that corporations are neutral anyway.

> Ironicaly you missed the most important point: who decides what is fake news?

In this case, twitter. And it's fine to disagree with the fact checkers.

> People that care deeply about free-speech tend to want a level playing ground for every person in a discussion, and to not have platforms that have a centralised bias for or against different messages or identities.

By that argument free-speech advocates would support the inclusion of intelligent design and flat earth into public schools. You seem to be constructing a strawman.

Freedom of speech does not exclude the possibility of explicitly labeling certain speech as wrong, and what twitter is doing here is definitely better that removing tweets outright.

It would be even better to explicitly include opposite sources when marking disinformation. The primary concern is that this "labeling" is just a prelude to removal.

> Free-speech is mainly about avoiding situations in which there is an authoritarian bias towards the speech of one group over another.

Allowing a heavily annotated of speech is a minimum guarantee of "freedom", and vastly better than outright suppression.

Also IPv6 was almost entirely unavailable until a few years ago. There's no point in learning how to use ipv6 if your ISP does not support it.

Both of those scenarios are perfectly compatible with ipv6, corporate IT needs to replace NAT with an ipv6 firewall for access to the public internet.

However it's also true that ipv6 does not give many advantages to a team that already has a 10.x.y.0/24 inside the corporate network.

The article makes a lot of points and all of them are pretty weak and stem entirely from ipv4 being the "established" protocol. In every case if you had an ipv6 config that worked and you wanted to switch to the ipv4 way of doing thing the result would be just plain worse.

> The conclusion of "It's hard to memorize or type plain IPv6 addresses" has always been "I guess I need (m)DNS" for me, not "wow, IPv6 is bad".

DHCP servers like dnsmasq can already serve lan hostnames even for ipv4.

> The value proposition for winforms and WPF for me is that they have been around forever and will continue to be around forever.

Checking on wikipedia shows that winforms was introduced in 2002 and wpf in 2006. This makes me feel very old.

ISPs are NOT a natural monopoly, you can have multiple sets of wires going to every building. This is the situation in my part of Europe and my internet is pretty damn fast.

Treating ISPs as a monopoly is fundamentally wrong.

I don't think this is a monopoly problem as much as a collusion problem: multiple providers exist but many regions each have a single provider. If this is a deliberate agreement then it's extremely illegal.

Where I live there are multiple high-quality ISPs at my building, the US should find a way to encourage multiple ISPs to be present in every single neighborhood.

People who complain about "too many ugly wires" should be ignored: it's much better to have ugly cables on poles than slow internet.

> The city is littered with e-scooters whose name changes every few months.

You claim to be against monopolies but are unwilling to tolerate even the slight inconvenience of seeing scooters parked around? I personally love them for their amazing convenience and they're also incredibly compact relative to cars or even bikes.

> If the business plan doesn't work out, who cleans up the satellites?

Cleaning up is essentially free as long as the satellites are still operational: just command them to deorbit. Orbits are low enough that the fuel required to deorbit is comparable to a few months of station-keeping.

Running CI against arbitrary code is extremely difficult to do securely and I'm not sure anyone does more than a token effort. Test infrastructure is not designed to run against malicious code.

One of the examples dumps environment variables which may contain secrets by injecting code through a github action. What's stopping code inside a PR from sending the same info over email?

> Would you just set up multiple “origins” with each one pointing to a head maintainer’s computer (and named appropriately)?

Yes. Instead of github.com/username/project people host git repos on their own machines.

Something is terribly wrong if astronomy of all fields encountered a reproducibility crisis.

> I really don't understand how a company can get away with using its customers as QA when they sell products that can kill people.

They already claim that drivers must pay attention to the road in order to prevent accidents and this has been the status-quo in the automotive world for a century or so. Selling products that can kill if misused is not remarkable.

This could turn ugly if it's shown that enabling self-driving results in much more accidents but there is no data to support this.

Tesla released data for autopilot, FSD beta has been out for ~1 week so there's not much real data.

An average increase is supported by data, food production issues is really not.

A functional democracy requires that all parties agree to abide by the result of the election and peaceful transfer of power.

Endorsing violent resistance is the opposite of that.

> crop destruction by droughts, freak storms, or flooding rains

Aggregate data is much more relevant than anecdotes.