My understanding is that, in retaliation to US sanctions imposed at the start of the invasion of Ukraine, Russia stopped providing RD-180 rocket engines that were used in the Atlas V. My surprise is that the USA relied on Russian rocket engines to put national security payloads into space.
They are certainly there with no means to return until February, which they will do on a different company’s capsule, from a mission that was supposed to last 8 days and instead will last 8 months. That sounds like stuck to me.
Whose fault is it, if not Boeing’s?
The Russians, the Iranians, the proud boys and uncle Jack in the family WhatsApp are all part of the same hydra of crap.
I see what you mean, but I disagree. Bot accounts are categorically different in this space. It’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation with a bot. So when I see things like bot activity disguised to look like organic human activity, especially when it aligns with hostile foreign state interests, that’s something that I think is uniquely bad and worth pointing out and combating.
Theoretical question - would it be possible to get so gassed up that if you peed in the pool you’d make everyone else test positive?
$330m is not nothing. But, with a funding split between a telecom CEO, and a shipping & logistics CEO - person has to wonder what sort of direction & tuning the team might be encouraged to explore. How will they stack up against existing & proven open source non-profits with impressive releases like EleutherAI?
These open source projects are neat, in that they give the average person the opportunity to peek under the hood of an LLM that they’d never be able to run on consumer level hardware. There are some interesting things to find, especially in the dataset snapshots that Eleuther made available.
In general, kind of cool to see France being on the cutting edge of these things. And I think it’s worth saluting any project that moves to decentralize power from states and megacorps, who seal wonderful, powerful things in black boxes.
This is interesting, and I didn’t think of it this way.
But, if the only way welfare administration can be streamlined is to give everyone money, I’d feel guilty about taking it. Wouldn’t be hard to find a way to spend $2k, sure, but knowing I didn’t truly need it to make ends meet, while other people did, & maybe would have been helped even more if they had some of my share? Ach, it wouldn’t feel right. It would be cool if the program was opt-out, and people who chose to opt out got a break in some other way, maybe on taxes that go to retirement savings. Maybe that’s a horrible idea, I don’t know.
Anyway cheers, thanks for explaining, I appreciate it.
I’m an idiot, so please jump in here if I’m getting this wrong.
Per the article, predicted program cost is $88 billion per year. Divide by Canada’s adult population of ~33 million, so, ~$2700 per person per year, minus administrative costs and bloat, so, say $2k per year.
Well, I definitely wouldn’t turn down a cheque if I qualified for it, and I don’t want to come off as complaining about a program that doesn’t even exist yet. But, $2k doesn’t sound like an amount that any person could function on. That’s less than one month’s rent almost everywhere in this country. It’s like, a 6" subway sandwich per day. Something something middle class, I seem to remember a certain federal party saying during election time. Why not simply lower taxes in a targeted way?
In what way is this amount ‘basic’? What’s the point of embarking on this whole investigative song & dance over a few extra bucks per day? What actually is the minimum amount necessary to function as an individual in this country? I think I know why the government isn’t investigating that question.
I’m not against UBI as a concept. This $88b program, if that number is correct, seems like it’s not even worth investigating. Am I crazy?
While sensible, I would argue that it is ill-advised (depending on context). One would instead be better suited to protest for this right, or to build grassroots support with the hope of democratically achieving it.
Sure, but it takes energy to protest & there are only so many hours in a day. If you’re fighting for something righteous, alright, maybe it’s worth it. But all that work for something that sits on the shelf at cabelas that anybody can buy? Nah.
the rule of law must be respected unless one is absolutely certain that there is no other choice
I disagree with this. There are laws that are unfair, discriminatory, puritanical, fruits of political gamesmanship, legislative overreach, arbitrary coincidences of time & place, restrictive on activities that harm no one, etc. I don’t think people oppressed by those laws should have to bear the burden of crusading against them. I don’t think disobedience needs to have strings attached.
If the safety we pay for, and the justice we expect isn’t provided sufficiently by the state, I think it’s sensible to ignore prohibitions of this nature. I don’t personally view them as a misfortune - freedom is a practice.
I see your point. On the other hand, chaos is a powerful terror tactic. If you’re a dissident, not knowing what angle you could be engaged from is stifling.
Also, people need to eat and drink daily. Poisoning is a horrible threat with multiple daily reminders.
To all the people in this thread saying this was probably an accident:
Imagine you’re an operator inside a totalitarian regime, and you want someone assassinated. Maybe this person isn’t themself a critical target, your objective is to instill fear in a particular department to increase compliance on a morally abhorrent skunkworks project. You already know everything about this person, of course including details of their personal life and hobbies. Hey they’re a mushroom hunter. Mycotoxins are readily available and can be lethal in small, undetectable doses. Not difficult to figure out what happens from there. Everyone who knows Vitaly knows, hey he wouldn’t pick and eat a poisonous mushroom. The message is sent to the people who you want to hear it.
In the context of the States, I don’t see how any new legislative intervention can deal with the 400 million existing guns in the nation. No country in the history of humanity has had to deal with that. My question is, can it even be dealt with?
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it’s misplaced cynicism. But, seems to me, the vast existing supply of firearms leads to a permanent condition where, a person who wants to do something bad with a gun, will find access one way or another. I genuinely have no idea how that situation gets fixed. “Do what Japan does” - which I’ve heard sincerely spoken aloud - is naive and would not be effective there.
I don’t live in the States, so it’s not my place to navigate the moral issues or make judgements. I just don’t understand how new gun control measures patterned on other countries in very different situations of supply could be effective, and properly target shitbags like the murderer in the OP article, in advance of a killing.
Thanks for the links, I’ll check them out. Persistence of data seems like an interesting issue.
Nobody would defend copyright if it wasn’t already in place
I don’t know about that. Say you take a few years to write a handful of poems, and it turns out people in your neighborhood really like them. You compile the poems into a book, and sell it for $5, and it sells well. Seeing this, your neighbor buys one, copies it, and starts selling it one neighborhood over for $2, and representing themself as the author. I would think most people in that situation would want to say, ‘hey, that’s not fair’. I don’t think that’s sick or rooted in greed, copyright can be a check on greed.
The problem really is that storage for video media is insane compared to storage of document or even photo data.
Yep, and add to that, 500 hours of video is uploaded to youtube every minute & they serve over 2.5 billion monthly users. The scale really is unfathomable.
If people here haven’t read into it, it’s incredibly interesting to look into the way the Internet Archive works. In particular you have to begin to concern yourselves with how long it takes for HDs, SSDs, and other media to degrade in time.
Where can I read more about this? It sounds interesting.
Absolutely. There’s nothing special about YouTube’s frontend - it can be replicated by someone with no coding experience, in an afternoon, for free, via a Softaculous module. On the inside, it’s the Library of Alexandria. And unfortunately, it’s owned by a company that understands that reality only as a means to a nefarious end, which is to develop a detailed psychological profile on its users that can be sold to advertisers.
My hope is that the cost of server storage and delivery will become inexpensive enough that YouTube can be forked and maintained by a nonprofit like the Wikimedia Foundation, who sees user generated content as a means to the enrichment of human experience. I’m not optimistic though, the history of the Library of Alexandria is instructive.
“Those people are snowflakes”
Following the theory that the leadership at twitter actually hate the users and are decimating the platform on purpose for the lols, maybe the outcome you suggest is the plan.
Part of me believes this theory, because it’s hard to imagine how someone even with the explicit stated purpose of destroying twitter could have topped the recent developments. It’s almost as if what they’re trying to do is embarrass and degrade the users.
That oft repeated claim of parallelism between the US Democrats and the CPC might have been more true in the past. I think there are significant differences nowadays as Poilievre plays with populist rhetoric and policy ideas. Considering the voting base the CPC is attempting to court, I’m not sure those two political parties are really in the same boat.
Interesting. Thanks for the info! I love learning about this stuff.
In case you know - was there some sort of exclusivity agreement the USA had for their Russian rocketry purchases? What would have prevented Russia from sharing their info with whoever they wanted, while still selling to the USA? Or was this agreement guided by political norms? Was the Clinton program named? I’d like to learn more about it.