zizee

> it is the worst of both worlds

A thin atmosphere provides an additional option over the alternative of zero atmosphere. Zero atmosphere means you rely entirely on propulsion to slow your arrival, which is inherently expensive. I can agree that a thicker atmosphere would be easier, but a thin atmosphere is better than none.

> absurdly complicated and risky 'sky crane'

The skycrane was entirely related to not wanting to stir up huge dust plumes around the lander.

Too late to edit, but I wanted to add:

> What terrifies me is the lack of nuance in the conservative talking points about "reducing regulation,"

I think this is really an issue of all issues in society today. Emphatic soundbites resonate with people, nuanced discussion does not. I'd think all politicians do this, and it's most notable when they're making statements about things we personally disagree on. If it's something we agree on, we happy to forgive and we "know" that the statement's lack of nuance is ok, because we don't want the message to be watered down.

Personally, I think there are many regulations that are good and well thought out, and many that are not. Industry typically does not bear the costs, they are passed on to the consumer. Sometimes this is good. Externalities should be priced in. Sometimes this is not so good, when you have a regulation for every edge case.

I'm not going to get into a debate on specific regulations. But if you don't believe there exists a lot of dumb regulations, just Google "weird regulations".

I'm really just responding to your original statement of:

> I think the alleged blight of "overregulation" has become a conservative mantra but without much basis in fact.

Perhaps you were specifically referring to the case of Nuclear power, but it didn't seem that way. Especially when you mentioned Insurance companies being the problem in the medical industry, as if they somehow exist in their current form independently from the regulatory environment they have helped to craft.

I have no real opinion on where nuclear is overburdened by regulation.

Using services is not the same as operating those services. I think if you could see the true costs that all the regulations bring, you might change your mind. And if you're happy to pay these costs you're most likely wealthy enough to be able to bear them.

Healthcare companies operate in an environment that is very much not a free market. For these companies, the regulatory burden is welcome as it is a high barrier to entry for new players. Read up on regulatory capture.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

What's with the headline switcheroo?

The theory I am talking about is Musk's motivations was for Tesla to sell cars.

I think he was pretty vocal about the high speed rail project not being great, and it not a great way to spend tax payers dollars. Can you point to where he said he wanted it cancelled to sell more cars?

And my question stands. How many cars will be taken off the roads when the high speed rail is complete? Even better, would be to share the numbers with timeline of each phase.

From what I read, the first phase of the high speed rail was not due to open until 2030, and be just 275 km. It does not sound like an existential threat to Tesla.

I know musk is a divisive character, and is much derided in HN, but it seems to me a lot of the stuff on the internet and press that people attribute to him don't stand up to much scrutiny. It would be good if we could hold ourselves to a higher standard on HN.

I can only think you are trolling.

You think that a floating base in the upper reaches of the Venusian atmosphere is a good first step? No being able to make trips to the surface would limit human involvement to the floating base, so scientific exploration would be very limited. The complexity makes it much more challenging to become self sufficient.

How would you propose making a return trip? Or is it a one way mission?

As for Jupiter's moons. They are so much further away than Mars, are all much lower in gravity, and much colder temperatures than mars.

Our own moon and mars are much better candidates for humans to visit, and attempt permanent bases and perhaps colonies.

You'll be pleased to know there are plans underway to setup a permanent moon base. I agree the moon has a lot going for it, but I think you have your finger on the scales when comparing the two.

> a catapult and a few days travel

We don't have catapult technology that would work on the moon without solving significant technological challenges. I don't think engineering challenges should hold us back (it's half the fun of these missions), but you cannot use "we don't have the tech" as an argument against mars, and handwave it away for the moon.

> The moon. It's closer, it has pre-made internal cavities,

Mars has lavatubes as well.

> we don't have a means of getting astronauts there without dying of cosmic-ray cancer on the way

People will not die of cancer of cancer in the way. It is likely there is an increased risk to developing cancer, it's not crazy. Some estimates put it at a 20% increase. Hardly a death sentence your post makes it out to be.

> Also, we can actually get there.

Energetically, Mars is not that much further away from us than the moon. It has a thin atmosphere that allows for aerobreaking, and is a useful resource once landed.

> In contrast we've put a man on the moon.

We've put a lot of robots on Mars as well. We've actually got more recent experience landing things on Mars than on the moon, especially large things.

No one is talking about landing humans on Mars without first refining a lot of technology, without being able to reliably land craft with literally tonnes of equipment.

Personally, I'm excited about both prospects, and I'm excited that SpaceX is finally developing the reusable heavy lift capability that we should have had years ago, but for whatever reason people stopped persuing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_lava_tube

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/18417/how-big-is-t...

> How do you look around at the legacy of colonialism on earth and be like "yes more of that please?"

Are you talking about human race, spreading out from our cradle in Africa thousands of years ago? Or more recent colonization? Or more recent examples of one group of people subjugating another pre-existing habitat of a land?

Because you know there are not people or animals on Mars right?

Phase 1 of the Californian high speed rail is/was not planned to open until 2030, and is just a 275 km long. Does that really sound like something that will slow the sales of Teslas?

What is a better candidate for colonization?

The scuttlebutt was related to the Californian high speed rail project. Would that really take a significant number of cars off the road? And what was the expected completion date? My gut says that it would have an inconsequential impact to Tesla, but I'd be interested if people have numbers that make this theory hold water.

Some of this is still driven by government policy (definitely required to kick start things), but at this stage economic drivers are the dominant force affecting adoption.

Given that OpenAI was named that way because it was meant to be open, a nonprofit, I think that your retort is not helpful.

Meh. Each to their own. There is some "value" in knowing that you own something that is not mass produced. In some aspects, each additional print doesn't affect the utility of any of the others. After all, it looks the same hanging on your wall.

But there is a difference. Using an extreme example, what if the print you hang on your wall is also hanging in every single Starbucks? It will detract from your experience because you'll think of Starbucks when you look at it. No one will marvel at your good taste, or ask where you found it. People might even look at you strangely.

I'm not saying all unnumbered prints are going to be this extreme, and the "value" described is logical. But hopefully this contrived example can demonstrate that there is an loss of value when each additional print is made (at least for a large percentage of the population).

If you're the sort of person that this doesn't make sense to, you needn't be swayed by this thinking. More power to you. But let's not pretend the practice is dishonest or perversive. And if your selling one print of an unlimited run, don't be surprised if people don't want to spend as much.

That was a good reminder to cancel my prime membership, ta!

It does? In what way? I have used Firefox mobile for years on HN without noticing issues. What am I missing?

Edit: I used Firefox on Android, the issues you describe might be Firefox on iOS, which is a different beast.

Is this just a "submarine" for the government to get the general public on board with online surveillance?

http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Ok, but the article this discussion is about didn't show examples of child slavery, but of child labour, with a coverup being performed by locals, and suggestions of a large corp not doing enough to verify things independently.

Rich countries should help poorer countries lift themselves out of poverty, but let's not pretend everything is clear cut and simple. How do you deal with corruption? What is an acceptable level of violations is acceptable? How do you measure the good you do vs the harm you're causing?

It's all good. I'm a bit of a pendant for word definitions people are using. I think loose definitions lead to all sorts of subtle miscommunications. Most of the time it's not a big deal, but I do have a soft spot for Ronald Dahl, so would like to verify when claims.

For all of the articles I can find written about Dahl's oompa-loompa slaves, not one of them puts together an argument as to why they are slaves. They just make the claim, and surround it with statements of the opmpa-loompas being originally black native inhabitants of Africa, and they worked for a white-man Wonka. I can see how people's minds go to slavery when describing a unbalanced power dynamic between an exclusively black workforce and a white boss man, but innuendo does not make for a compelling argument IMHO.

If the book doesn't mention them being imprisoned, doesn't mention being forced to work, talks about them being paid a wage, and given the choice on how to be paid, then they are not slaves. We can make lots of assumptions about what is happening behind the scenes of the factory, but we could do that just as easily to suggest the Oompa-loompas are actually the masterminds behind everything, and secretly control the governments of the world.

Personally, I think Dahl's original depiction was racist, but not describing slavery. The fact all these articles don't provide anything from the original text* showing that they are slaves makes me think this is a case of people wanting to inflate someones misdeads in order to generate clicks. It's easy enough to find real things to criticize the man for, but they should stick to the facts, or make an actual argument.

*The biographer was doing the same thing as the articles.

Are you saying rich countries should force poor countries to adopt to their ethical and moral codes? Should they adopt all of them, like our stringent building codes? What about minimum wages? Vehicle safety standards?

I'm being supercilious, but hopefully you can see the problem.

> Oompa-Loompas were literal slaves form Africa

I can find a lot of stuff written online about this, but none of it quotes the original text.

The original oompa-loompas were pygmies from Africa, written in a pretty racist way, and with wonka being a type of white-messiah-savior for them. I can definitely see an argument that wonka was a shitty employer, violating all sorts of legal and moral rules. But we're they actual slaves? From what I have been able to find they were paid, but chose to take payments in cocoa. Were they forced to work and imprisoned?

I guess I would like to see the original text, as all the articles written on the subject make proclamations of them being actual slaves, but don't show anything from the original text (or make the argument) to demonstrate they were actually slaves.

One such article: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/170755

I find it extremely frustrating when people/businesses/organizations take advantage of the general populations politeness.

Ten years ago I would have found it really difficult to hang up on some random phone caller that I didn't want to speak to. Now I don't give it a second thought.

Inch by inch we'rkke all getting ruder and ruder to deal with these motherfuckers, and I can't help but feel that it is spilling out into regular interactions. I would hate to be in mmmmk

> Buildings are designed and built at about the same speed as they were then. They cost as much or more in inflation-adjusted terms.

If that is true, I bet the % amount of labour has been reduced of the total cost, and materials and/or shifting standards have swallowed up the difference.

> No markets in a civilized society are truly free. So I don’t think it’s very meaningful to point this out.

I disagree. My comment was in direct response to the GP's comment of:

> It's strange when businesspeople seem to expect that their business has a right to exist beyond profitability in the market place.

When the "marketplace" is dictated by government policy, it's fair to question the effects of policy. You cannot handwaved it away with claims of some hand of God marketplace that no one has the ability to influence.

> What about government regulations is wrong here

I specifically stated I was not making claims of whether this result was good or bad.

> and why would this result in soulless chain stores?

You ask this, and then go on to say:

> Aren’t soulless chains the default resting state of a mature economic sector?

Clearly, the operating environment results in this sort of thing. The environment is influenced by government.

Soulless chains need not be the default resting state. For instance, a government could introduce a prgressive company tax rate, or rules (like limits on number of liquor licenses a Corp can own), making it easier for small businesses to compete.

Now, I will make a value judgement: soulless chains, and massive businesses are not good for society for many reasons. I would much rather live in a world of many competing small businesses, than a homogeneous pastiche of mediocrity.

Regardless of whether it's good or bad these places are closing down, don't be confused and think they're operating in a free market. Government policy has a huge influence on their ability to survive. It will end with the majority of remaining pubs being large, soulless chains.

I assume by "expensive as hell", you're talking about it being expensive to patronize these places.

The "good" implies that you might think these places deserve to go out of business because they are expensive. You can bet your ass that they're expensive because all of their costs have skyrocketted, not because they are profiteering.

I'm guessing they are talking about outlook.com, which is one of Microsoft's alternatives to Gmail. I.e. outlook.com, a host of millions of email addresses, is rejecting the emails from their server.

Do you have a source for that? I don't doubt what you write, but I would love to learn more.

I had thought that this was not a huge win, as lithium is fairly cheap, and not a large portion of the overall cost of a battery. However, my research taught me I was incorrect.

Lithium is worth about $40k per tonne, or $40 per kg. A Tesla power wall 2 is about 150kg, if half of that is lithium, then the lithium alone is worth $2.3k. Powerball costs about $9.5k, so the lithium is a fair portion of the cost.

https://www.thisoldhouse.com/solar-alternative-energy/review...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/606350/battery-grade-lit...

Note, I know raw lithium carbonate is not stuck directly into a battery, just spitballing with the little bit of learning I just did.