zizee

The SLS is widely understood to be less about research and development, and more about pork barreling, and jobs program. I don't buy that humanity should avoid investing in space travel because US Congress and surrounding governmental beaurcracy is not running projects effectively. That argument would stop just about any human activity.

It's pretty difficult to predict what spinoffs would come from attempting to put a colony on Mars. I would imagine to succeed we would need to solve a lot of challenges with human biology, genetic engineering, automation, and many novel engineering solutions.

But economics is not the only reason to do things, and I bet you don't expect everything humans do to have a purely economic rational.

Why does the reportimg say she "abandoned" her car at the beach? She was at the beach when she was located. People usually do not take their cars with them once they arrive at their destination. To get out and walk is not abandoning the car.

Sorry, what is the previous dependency?

If you're talking about longevity of solar or wind turbines, given that their lifespan is measured in tens of years, it does give you some ability to respond to some external group cutting your supply off. It's not remotely the same as oil/gas dependency.

Does React have story for backend? I should have mentioned that my interests lie in building backend/back of house functionality.

Has it been decided that training models is fair use? Has it been decided in all jurisdictions?

The vast majority of people cannot do the structured thinking to model the real world in a fashion that a computer can understand. That is a key attribute of a good dev. If someone can do this, and describe it well enough to a LLM, they are a dev. It's not devs that will be taken out of the loop, unless you define a dev as someone who is just a translator between human language and machine code.

Then they should easily fall within the regulation section posted earlier.

If you cannot see the difference between BitTorrent and Ai models, then it's probably not worth engaging with you.

But Ai model have been shown to reproduce the training data

https://gizmodo.com/ai-art-generators-ai-copyright-stable-di...

https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188

It doesn't seem unreasonable. If you train a model that can reliably reproduce thousands/millions of copyrighted works, you shouldn't be distributibg it. If it were just regular software that had that capability, would it be allowed? Just because it's a fancy Ai model it is ok?

So because sometimes a regulation misses the mark, governments should not try to regulate?

I personally don't think we'll all die due to climate change, but i could easily see it set off massive problems like wars over resource shortages.

The pandemic demonstrated that the global economy is a finely tuned machine. It doesn't take much to upset the operation of such a beast, and a big interruption could have massive unforseen consequences.

Think about it like a complex, mission critical software system. Are you going to make big changes in many key areas and rush them out to prod? Or do you want to release them individually over time.

Does this mean the H1B visa program will be curtailed? /s

The point of trying to address climate change is not that it's impossible for us to adapt, it's that to adapt to the predicted rate of change is going to be a lot more expensive/disruptive than trying to slow the change to more natural levels.

> In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come

This is on the money.

> The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary

The rate of change is extraordinary, and makes it expensive/different to adjust.

There are many nuclear powered ships. If the decision is between nuclear proliferation, or the end of the global economy, I'm betting we'll choose the former.

If you have enough electricity, you can manufacture avgas, methane and whatever other fuels you need for aerospace.

Sometimes it is good to tradeoff solving a known short term problem, by taking on a solution with a uncertain long term issue.

If the world had continued to adopt nuclear power unabated, it is likely that climate change would not be a problem, and millions of cases of cancer not occurred.

This is not to say it is now time to adopt nuclear carte blanche, but to demonstrate that your way of thinking is not without issue either.

Better than what some people do: argue that the problem you have raised doesn't exist.

Normal blenders have substantially more cleanup work involved.

How do the costs of long distance, high voltage lines compare to batteries for addressing solar intermittency?

> That means the technology problem is now a money problem.

This is such an odd insight. Most problems in the world can be described as a "money problem", and it's usually the problem that problem solvers are pushing up against.

Honest question: are you asking them to not express this idea? Or that they used uncouth language?

Fibre will always be better for densely populated areas. But for less dense satellite is making a lot of sense.

However, for nation states there is a lot of value in having redundancy and sovereignty over your telecommunications infrastructure. Having a foreign country's company being sole provider could put you in a tough position (for the good/bad of your population).

I have yet to see a starlink proponent suggest starlinl is a good solve for densely populated areas. Are there some misguided/uneducated people saying dumb stuff on the internet? I am sure they are out there, but you can find someone saying almost anything you can imagine on the internet.

Your dislike of Musk is clouding your judgement.

They're not using semantic versioning. SpaceX hasn't even finished a production ready starship, they are still very much in the R&D stage. Just because the latest iteration is know as V2, doesn't mean much.

The fact they haven't achieved the extremely ambitious goals doesn't reflect poorly on the engineering going into Starship, or that "V1" has failed to hit the goals.

English speaking countries are always popular to move to.

> South Africa ... if they can see eye to eye on political and economic issues.

That's a pretty big "if".

Right now South Africa is a basket case, with corruption at the highest levels of government, and one in five citizens living in extreme poverty. The crime rate is extreme, with high levels of murder and rape.

So yes I agree, South Africa would be very "interesting" if it joined the EU.

Wasn't the federal government of the US formed with a very narrow mandate, and then ratcheted up control with the the innocuous sounding Interstate Commerce clause?

Disclaimer: I am neither American, nor very educated about what I just wrote.

What are the benefits that cannot be obtained by signing trade agreements?

Canada is already part of NATO for defence, so joining the EU does nothing for defence.

Does Canada want freedom of movement of EU citizens into Canada? They already have a housing crisis.

Greece's experience shows a single currency isn't really beneficial to all members of the EU, so Canada would be crazy to give that up.

It is in the Commonwealth?

We've happily fucked future generations by being scared of nuclear (with the fear campaign funded by fossil fuel companies), and bring about climate change.

That is shameful, and the anti-nuclear crowd can take responsibility for that.

I'd be more concerned about the next 100 years, than pretending we can predict what things we do today will be a positive or negative for 200 years from now, let alone 1000s.

And anyway. If you bury this stuff deep enough, encase it in glass, it's going to take a fairly advanced civilization to get at it. They'll quickly work out the risks involved after playing too much with their newly found treasure. Then they can decide whether to leave it be, or whether it's a boon.

> Remember, it is hundreds of thousands of years

Remember that I have already said I disagree with this as something we should be worried about.

That is understood. The comment had a well written article that goes into detail about how the poorly designed regulations more than double the costs of building nuclear. Just saying you dispute something, without providing any arguments, or rebuttals is not very convincing.