FaceDeer

No, not necessarily a problem in either of those things. As I said, it ruptured way below the pressure the tank was rated for - nothing wrong with the design there. And I don’t know if it’s been explicitly confirmed or not, but those tanks get tested above that pressure before they get installed. The ship had already done a single-engine test firing so it must have actually been pressured up to that already when it did that previously.

It sounds to me like something happened that damaged the tank after it was already in place. That would be my guess. Something banged into it and nobody noticed.

Nominations don’t really mean anything.

I’m responding to someone who said:

Seems like humans are moving towards ending all life on earth. Just another dead rock in an infinite vacuum.

That’s the context.

My point is that this is not true, and I’m explaining why it’s not true.

None of which comes close to rendering humanity extinct. That’s been my point all along. Nuclear war would suck, but it would not render humanity extinct.

Does any of it consider the wars that will be triggered? How the water supply will be affected? How the weather is going to be affected after an already fucked up atmosphere absorbs this damage?

Did you consider any of it? In an actually analytical way, that is, instead of just imagining the outcome you wanted?

I provided links, you provided nothing but belief and fearmongering. And downvotes, of course, which also prove nothing.

You can believe it all you want, the numbers just aren’t there. There are only ~3800 nuclear warheads that are ready for launch, across all countries that possess them. That’s not enough to put a permanent dent in the human population even if you launched all of them targeted to inflict maximum casualties. Which isn’t how they’d be launched, of course - most of them would be aimed at military targets, such as ICBM silos and airstrips that are out in the middle of nowhere.

I expect you’ll propose nuclear winter as the actual killing effect. Nuclear winter has been drastically overblown, often for this very reason - to scare people into an anti-proliferation stance. We know a lot more now than we did when the first wild predictions were made.

Again, not to say that nuclear war isn’t bad. But if one is to make good decisions one should strive for realistic understanding of the world. It wouldn’t literally cause human extinction.

It always seemed to me like once that sort of pagentry became mandatory (through social pressure even if not actual legal requirement) then it also lost its meaning.

Like all the banners wishing shoppers a merry Christmas. Nobody actually thinks that the managers of those stores actually care if you have a merry Christmas. It’s just what stores do to mark the start of November.

Not to say that nuclear war isn’t bad, but we literally don’t have enough bombs available to do that.

Early analysis suggests that one of the high-pressure nitrogen gas tanks in the cargo bay ruptured. This would be unrelated to the rocketry aspects of Starship, those tanks are pretty plain vanilla technology and if this is actually what happened it’s weird because those tanks are rated for way higher safety margins.

It costs so much to make an AAA game these days that it must earn an enormous amount of money to be profitable, which means it needs to appeal to as broad a market as possible, which means nothing niche or unusual. I think movies are having the same problem.

Is it cheating to say AI and humanoid robots?

Anti-aging tech, if so.

Crypto can be anonymous, if you use the right cryptocurrency and do things correctly. “Crypto” is a very broad term. Different cryptocurrencies have different functions and purposes.

Perhaps be more succinct? You’re really flooding the zone here.

You have tunnel vision on this issue.

No, I’m staying focused.

Starfleet has a serious stacking problem.

That is absolutely ridiculous. The pressure AI scraping puts on sites vastly outstrips anything people built for, as evidenced by the fact that the systems are going down.

Yes. Which is why I’m suggesting providing an approach that doesn’t require scraping the site.

It’s ironic that you’re railing against capitalism while espousing exactly the sort of scarcity mindset that capitalism is rooted in, whereas I’m the one taking the “information wants to be free” attitude that would normally be associated with anti-capitalist mindsets.

Do you know how excited I was when LLM tech was announced? Do you know how much it sucked to realize, so soon, that companies were going to do their best to use it to optimize profits?

They do that with everything. Does that mean that everything must therefore become some kind of all-or-nothing battleground wherein companies must be thwarted?

It’s not as simple as, “Oh, you say that you believe in freedom of information, but curious how you don’t want private companies to use it to make money at your expense! Guess you’re a hypocrite.”

Emphasis added. That part is where you’re in error about my view, it’s not at my expense. It doesn’t harm me any.

Tell me what you actually believe, or stop cycling back to this like it’s a damning rebuttal.

I have been.

I’m not “taking their side.” I’m just not actively trying to harm them. The world is not a zero-sum game, it’s often possible for everyone to get what they want without harming each other in the process.

Yes, I know the companies are not the same as normal patrons. I don’t care that they’re not the same as normal patrons. All I’m concerned about is that the normal patrons get access to the data. The solution I proposed does that.

The problem, as I see it, is that’s not all that you are concerned about. Your goal also includes a second aspect; you want those companies to not have access to that data. So my proposal is not acceptable because it doesn’t thwart those companies.

I’m not drawing an equivalence between companies and individual patrons, I’m just saying my goals don’t include actively obstructing those companies. If they can get what they want without interfering with what the normal patrons want, why is that a bad thing?

I feel like the Trump administration has moved beyond scandals at this point. Scandals are just the ocean in which it swims. The emoluments clause is dead, buried, and completely forgotten. Other parts of the constitution are still hanging around in tatters, people are noticing some of that, but run of the mill scandal is not relevant.

This one hasn’t passed yet, when it does it’ll bring whole new levels of mockery.