I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. The Shuttle requirements were absolutely modified by DoD's desire to ship military satellites and carry out operations. One of the many tug-o-wars that ended up with such a compromised design.
And since you brought up the X-37B, I have to admit, I absolutely love its dynamic flight capabilities whereby it literally banks off the upper atmosphere like a silver surfer to rapidly change orbits at perigee. Quite an interesting bit of tech that did evolve from the shuttle and is still doing work this very day.
Ah, but humanity is an expansive and consuming force, as is natural since most forces in the universe are entropy increasing ones. And since amino acids have been discovered on asteroids and tardigrades and fungus have been shown to survive space travel, we can't even say that Space provably lacks biological matter. Expanding (back?) into space is our manifest destiny, and good for the price of real estate too since all of earth becomes a luxury destination.
Population growth has been slowing for a long time, and is actually already below replacement level in most parts of the world outside Africa. It's unlikely that we will ever reach a global human population of even 11 billion. Some estimates put the peak at under 9 billion.
Even space telescopes have been built on the skeletons made for spying, and rockets in almost any form were weapons before they were carrying peaceful missions. That we have Russian, American, and European components communicating together at the ISS is kind of a lovely, if temporary, closure of the circle.
Yes. "UI Speed" should be a configurable thing, so that if the UI changes as you're choosing an item, it acts instead on _what was there_ at a brief moment in the past, e.g. 20-50ms ago.
Well, by "computer" we're of course talking about colocated equipment with real capital costs. The data center operators are the equivalent of the people selling shovels to the gold rush prospectors.
This'll go identically to bitcoin mining, which is literally a computer that you plug in and it makes money. The big ASIC manufacturers were running their own ASICs in-house until they were no longer profitable. Then, they would sell them to customers who pre-ordered back when it was profitable.
If there was pressure to arrive quickly (hence the high airspeed) or not do a go-around for whatever profit-related reasons, then I would say need to profit was involved in the decision making process that led to this.
When you take resource consumption out of the equation, you are more free to make lower-risk decisions.
telling yourselves that it was "communism" that did this as opposed to the stark raving lunancy of the current American regime is hilarious misunderstanding of political ideals.
The answer to this question seems obvious. There are no 42 year olds that retire by merely "saving and not over spending" when even one child is involved.
Yes there are. My brother in law sold his startup and is sufficiently retired while raising my nephews. Not a common case, by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not zero.
Nope. Before the kids we had an incredible savings rate. Sometimes around 80-90%.
Now our spending is much higher but the growth of our investments over the last 10 years has been incredible and outpaced that by a large margin.
For a while I thought some startup stock I had was going to fund a lavish retirement but then AI largely destroyed the value of those shares so we're just planning on the boring index funds.
Ahh, I see what you mean. When I read the original comment it seemed like a regular save and spend less approach. If some saving in index funds was obvious, I am sorry for my assumption.
I'm pretty excited for the hybrid airplane. Use battery charge to get up to altitude. Hybrid power during cruise and top off the battery with the leftover power. Far less power requirements, far less fuel use, better climb performance, and can use the most efficient engine rather than hugely inefficient but power dense turbines. And as a bonus, put the prop power anywhere you want. Designs that distribute props across the leading endge, or right on the leading edge of the rudder, are exciting.
Tractor props have the benefit of creating an airstream over the wings which lets you generate lift at lower speeds - this is why leading-edge props are so interesting. Pushers can’t use that bonus feature of the airstream.
Kind of arrogant no? Linux kernel development mailing lists are producing something immensely valuable with a much clearer impact on economic indicators than your average scientific paper. Comparing them is hard, but it's patently absurd to say there's nothing being produced compared to scientific papers.
Dunno who you're arguing with, I didn't say they didn't produce anything of value. I said they aren't producing scientific papers. Conversations are not like papers. The scientists have conversations (sometimes on mailing lists!) as well. The analog to scientific papers in the Linux world are... scientific papers. And the occasional essay on the mailing list, which---get this---would be more valuable to humanity if it was subsequently reproduced as a paper with references and explanations and the like.
(Notwithstanding the absurdity of academic publishing, of course.)
And since you brought up the X-37B, I have to admit, I absolutely love its dynamic flight capabilities whereby it literally banks off the upper atmosphere like a silver surfer to rapidly change orbits at perigee. Quite an interesting bit of tech that did evolve from the shuttle and is still doing work this very day.
reply