uwuemu

All the BS aside, the only thing I have problems with is "with immediate effect". If the customer didn't break your ToS or existing laws and pays you, you are OBLIGATED to continue the service. If you don't, that's called stealing and it's a scumbag thing to do. (I'm not even going to mention the substantial time and money investment a typical host change takes.)

It's not about trust. They can have all good intentions in the world, but still fail. Because as Elon says: "The extreme difficulty of scaling production of new technology is not well understood. It’s 1000% to 10,000% harder than making a few prototypes. The machine that makes the machine is vastly harder than the machine itself."

A probe based on nuclear pulse propulsion could do it in around 50 years, with today's technology. It's not that we can't do it fast (within one average human lifespan), it's that the project would be very expensive and something like Nasa has a relatively tight budget.

I mean we, as humanity, have to have an eccentric billionaire start a Martian fire (SpaceX Starship) under our lazy asses to even start to think about getting to Mars in a reasonable timeframe and in reasonable numbers (to start a colony). We are not funding making our species multiplanetary for the last few decades because we were too lazy, how can anyone expect us sending anything to the closest star (other than the sun)... You can't.

> Will people be able to downvote tweets from official accounts for heads of state?

What's your point here, exactly? That they should, or should not be able to do that? Because this already happens, except it's even worse than letting people do it, because Twitter does it by itself. With zero oversight by anyone (not that other big tech platforms don't do the same). Twitter already rank boosts content it likes and content it doesn't like gets downranked, shadow banned or just permabanned. It already filters trends and search and autocomplete. So we have a situation where a big tech company does what it wants and does it so much that it literally skews elections (all of this is common sense, but there are also many peer reviewed studies about this, some authors of which have testified before congress and some of which are represent bases for many US & EU investigations into the big tech monopolies/cartels). So given all this, is it really a problem to let people downvote stuff... or is it actually about not letting the people you don't like have a vote?

Youtube dislikes were completely fine 99.999999% of the time and lasted for like a decade without issues. Until someone like you, sadly in a position of power, decided that (speculation starts) Biden got too many dislikes on his ramblings and it was a bad look for Google (speculation ends).

Some people just HATE democracy because democracy means even dumb people, rednecks, racists, sexists and all kinds of "irresponsible" people get to vote. Ironically, most of the time (in recent history at least), these people who hate democracy call themselves democrats or liberals. In reality, they're anything but that. Actual liberals recognize that everyone deserves a to have a voice in a democracy. Even the bad voices are valuable, because they allow the marketplace of ideas actually do its magic.

Does it really help you if the engine weighs nothing when the batteries weigh a ton? Economically viable (battery powered) electric aircraft is sci-fi.

What a joke.

Fallout worry is not a thing with modern ICBMs and warheads (not the way you're imagining it). By the time the ICBM enters the terminal phase nothing can (currently) stop it. It's just a deployed MIRVed/MARVed warhead, ie. a set of a dozen or more hypersonic glides tipped with nukes and you have barely minutes to do anything even if you could. No, the way you stop a modern ICBM is you shoot it down with a nucler tipped anti-ICBM missile mid flight during its mid flight/coast phase, way before it had a chance to deploy. This basically happens in space and no fallout is going to reach the ground.