caffinatedone @ caffinatedone @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

71

Joined

2 yr. ago

There wasn’t realistically the public interest or unlimited cash that the Apollo program had to work with, so this was never going to realistically happen in the 80s or 90s, shuttle or not.

Given the technology, there’s no way that we’d have gotten the relatively quick sugar rush like we did for the Moon landings; it’d have been a long, very hard, and very, very expensive slog to get people there.

There’s approximately a zero percent chance that the level of public enthusiasm for such an endeavor would have supported the amount of money and effort needed to make it happen.

Heck, we even cut the Apollo program short because the public quickly got bored with it once we had the big shiny.

After all of the sketchy contracts that musk seems to be getting under this regime, the next administration should nationalize SpaceX. With their corrupt self dealing, perhaps give him a dollar or so for it.

His mind is already mush and in four years, it’d be a terrible Weekend at Bernie’s sequel.

Since it’s a money hole just like all of the other “AI” companies, who’s funding xAI and what are they getting out of being a slush fund for musk?

I don’t know why not being lied to in the room at the WH would be a big loss for their reporting. Maybe just investigate and cover what they’re doing and tell folks that?

I don’t think that it’s like a patent where the holder has to defend it; Oracle can decide to go after a license violation if they want to.

I’d imagine that if a real competitor or someone with deeper pockets shipped it, they’d be hearing from the throngs of lawyers that oracle keeps on staff in short order.

That’s because Tesla’s stock valuation was always based on “revolutionary new shiny thing!” rather than “making and selling cars”.

musk has to constantly come out with a new reason why the stock justifies a valuation so insanely high (was worth more than all other car companies combined). “Full self driving!” “Robotaxies!” “Fully automated manufacturing!”, etc….

That’s also why musk can extort $50B payoffs from Tesla. So much of their value is based on his BS powered reality distortion field that they’re terrified of what might happen if he leaves.

Now, there’s huge risk inherent in banking everything on the very stable genius musk as they’re learning.

It’s a valid question if you live in a state that will only accept forms of ID which cost money to vote. I don’t know if that’s really the case anywhere, but if it were it could presumably be the subject of a lawsuit.

With the current SC, I expect that they’d find some bogus rationale why it didn’t count, but under a law respecting court, it’d be reasonable to require such states to provide suitable IDs at no cost.

The EV1 was too far ahead of its time. The tech wasn’t there and to even accomplish what they did cost far more than they could hope to sell it for. An estimate that each EV1 cost GM around $100k to make in the early 90’s (so around $200k in today’s dollars).

Battery tech has progressed massively since then and makes all of this possible now (even if it’s still expensive).

They're installing them into the agencies to act as comisars to enforce political purity and root out dissent.

It's a pretty obvious next step after them gaining control of the treasury payment systems and people's private data. Can't have internal pushback on weaponizing these to attack Americans more broadly.

Executive orders can't make things illegal. They're not royal proclamations, they're just guidance to executive agencies.

F*cking idiots.

Don’t worry, I’m sure that he has concepts of a plan already.

Yep. It’d be inconvenient for them to note that the funding issues are primarily driven by increasing concentration of income which falls above the Social Security withholding cap. If they’d just remove that cap, then no issue.

..and they should do what?

They don’t have the votes in congress to do anything themselves, and their ability to block things is very limited. They could slow down confirmations more, I suppose, but they don’t have the votes to stop anyone. Democracy sucks sometimes.

If they’re using the platform available to them to call out horrible things and lawbreaking, then it’s something. The only thing that might change the current situation is if we can start convincing more of the general population to sour on the trump regime to put pressure on them. Eventually, that could be leverages to win elections which could put a brake on things (maybe).

Of course they are; they’d be stupid not to.

That said, given the total joke that operational security is to this administration, I’d imagine that they have most of the U.S secrets already. Heck, trump is probably having tulsi share and collaborate with russia.

I'm not arguing for it, I agree that it's fine if it's a free choice. I don't think personally that it's a good one, though.

My point is that many of the women pushing this on the republican side view all of this, including their own loss of rights, as a positive likely. It's not like a "leopards eating faces" or "voting against their interests" situation where they might be reachable.

For the believers, I think that tmany would be fine with this. It reinforces their preferred structure of a patriarchy in which they have a well-defined place and role (head of the domestic household, subservient to the man). No worries about having to deal with a fickle job market or figuring out what you want to do with your life. Your life path is set (get married, raise kids, take care of family), and, for some, that well-defined role the status that it conveys is really comforting. It provides a sense of security.

It's why, I expect, while there are many who fight it, there are plenty of women in Muslim societies who are fine with things as they are. We emphasize with those women who chafe at that and fight it since we've history valued the individual rights of self-determination and freedom, of course.

Thats a big allure of the American taliban to some folks. It provides structure and defined roles in a chaotic world.

Of course, republican men like it for the power, but more importantly, that women voters mostly vote against them. Stopping women from voting would cement them in power.

Well, the competent ones are zealots pursuing terrifying things. I'd say they're more damaging. Head of the OMB being a great example.

No, they didn't. When did they have a chance to pass a constitutional amendment?