I haven’t used Windows in years and rarely think about it. But, ads. I hate ads with the burning fury of a thousand suns. Therefore, MS catches some fraction of that hate by putting them in the OS.

Plus, it’s unix-like and comes when an ssh client.

I don’t dare express the opinion to my wife, who is Irish, but I actually do enjoy both. They both have distinct flavors and are worth trying.

Lyon’s, the superior Irish tea.

I’m also a fan of Yunnan teas. Especially pu ehr (shou, sheng, compressed, loose, it’s all good) and Yunnan Noir.

I both love and hate this so much. The performance and recording is incredible but any super tech nerdy parody just causes me immense internal cringe. I couldn’t make it more than a third of the way through that and I love working with K8S.

Absolutely the best kind of space crashloopbackoff.

So what it’s really like is only having to do half the work?

If it’s automating the interesting problem solving side of things and leaving just debugging code that one isn’t familiar with, I really don’t see value to humanity in such use cases. That’s really just making debugging more time consuming and removing the majority of fulfilling work in development (in ways that are likely harder to maintain and may be subject to future legal action for license violations). Better to let it do things that it actually does well and keep engaged programmers.

And if you have a 3D printer, you can make your own pieces and share them with others.

I really wish that an affordable desktop chip fab was a thing. Maybe with graphene semiconductors it could be feasible.

Curious from your perspective what you’d like to see. From mine, Viture and Xreal are nearly perfect, with the exception of Xreal failing to be supportive of open APIs.

That’s what they were SO close to getting. Solutions like Xreal Air and Viture are just much more comfortable and less isolating.

Indeed. I think that my questioning was more rhetorical but explicitly spelling it out can be helpful.

The state of Michigan has no historical connection to the AR-15, to my knowledge. Why don’t they pick something that is actually native to Michigan like the Johnston Muzzleloader?

They are absolutely eating the real costs in order to gain market share. I suspect that there’s going to be a mad dash to rehire humans when the bill comes due and the VCs want profits.

First, you’d need to figure out the best “energy shield(s)” for deflecting the problematic radiation. A quick glance shows that there’s been some promising research using charged plasma bubbles contained by superconductors. That does not sound likely to be low energy. Then there’s other problems like getting telemetry data, etc. Would be awesome if such an approach were proven to work.

Despite the downvotes, you do make an important point. In order for space travel to be feasible, efforts are needed to mitigate and reduce the environmental impacts of chemical rockets. For cargo, it could be possible to use electromechanical means of propulsion that may involve acceleration before what a human body is capable of.

Best would likely be a space elevator powered by nuclear and/or renewables. This could greatly reduce the amount of pollution involved in transiting between the Earth and orbital positions.

Definitely oversimplification and I don’t mean to understate the efforts, technology, engineering, and materials that went into the ISS. It’s incredible. My main point being just how simple the current state-of-the-art is compared to what would be needed for a sustainable orbital shipyard.

We know how to assemble stuff in space, it’s just expensive.

Indeed (ISS being a good example of this fact). The scope here though is beyond just assembly. Also, at minimum, manufacturing of shielding components would likely be necessary in order for such an undertaking to be feasible.

Yeah. I think that they are simplifying a bit. For practical purposes, for the foreseeable future, it is a “can’t be”. There is a lot of work and research that would be necessary to get an orbital shipyard in place. As someone else mentioned, the current state-of-the-art space station is effectively little more than rocket body segments with extras (solar panels, etc).

It’s much easier for me to say “this is what we would need to do” than to actually do it. We have the technology to build a space station. We don’t currently have proven technologies to refine, cast, forge, and extrude metal in microgravity and hard vacuum. We don’t currently have proven technologies to manufacturer space craft out of components in microgravity and hard vacuum. And those are just a handful of the necessary things that we know - there are a bunch of unknown unknowns.

So, technically, yes, it isn’t a “can’t be” but, at this time, it may as well be.

If you’re asking about the shielding, probably the mass required for materials that are generally used for radiation shielding. If the craft is built terrestrially, the amount of energy necessary to launch would be insurmountable with current chemical rockets.

Now, if the craft were manufactured in space (and forming of the shielding materials were practical in low-G), the problematic materials could be shuttled up over time, making it a non-issue. This would, of course, also mean that the craft could not be used for re-entry and would require landing craft. And there’s all the logistics challenges (supplying air, etc). Probably though the direction that will be necessary for long-distance space craft.

Don’t forget Yitzhak Rabin. He worked towards peace while prime minister. Which is why Netanyahu and Likud marched calling for his death, almost certainly inspiring or at least encouraging Rabin’s assassination.

That’s not to say bikes don’t have any safety at all… there is R&D that goes into making them safe in a collision… as safe as they can be.

Yup. I survived a high-side collision after being sideswiped by an SUV. Thanks to modern safety gear, I only had minor injuries with little long-term beyond an ankle to lets me sense slight changes in atmospheric pressure.