avmich

Yes, but the point is to look for different representations, not necessarily use this specific one.

We can likely use different number representations for faster results. E.g. numbers in the form of coefficients to prime factors can be multipled at O(n) time, right?

No, that's not accurate.

Rubio recently grew in popularity a lot, so JD isn't the only option.

"Their way" - some way has to be chosen, without too many back-and-forth.

In addition to technical there could be other reasons to prefer a solution. Some of those reasons can't be stated - for various reasons, like privacy or intuitiveness.

There are some reasons people like that are rewarded, and not all of those reasons are bad.

What would you do if you need to encrypt data using analog computer?

Suppose you have some analog dataset, say 1000 readings between 0 and 100 V, and your sensor allows to resolve the values up to 0.1 V precision. Now you need to encrypt that data before, say, sending them over radio. How would you do it?

Can we really accelerate any probe to faster than 1% c? Or 2% c?

Can they make a city the same way Starbase city was built in Texas, or the laws are sufficiently different?

I wonder - to grow, say, 15% per month people have to pay the founder specific money for the product. Why exactly they pay that amount, and not less, say? Is it because they want founder to become a billionaire? The growth is measured in money, not product/service transactions.

How much water is contained inside the datacenter at any given moment? That's how much water is taken from circulation by this datacenter. Is it enough to worry?

An argument against could refer to established practices of limiting power of executive branch in particular...

Looks like an opinion. If structural principles are legally binding, we can remember other cases from other areas.

Why this suddenly becomes urgent? For long time we had automatic emails with "thank you" which weren't written by humans, why something is different today?

I'm not sure the author understands the nature of the disagreement. A few times he put a sentence assuming it's an agreed upon fact...

Hmm :) this is another minimalist, let's compare... https://terraformindustries.com

Apollo I disaster suggests pure oxygen atmospheres are to be avoided.

For every human onboard ISS there is always place in the docked spaceship. Exceptions: when spaceships break, replacements are usually sent - like, when Soyuz lost coolant or Starliner was considered too unreliable. While waiting for replacements, those ploblematic spacecrafts still serve as lifeboats, except maybe Crew Dragons can carry more people than those 4 they usually carry...

Telll it to my friend who was escaping a country under sanctions and had to move his money elsewhere. His bank didn't have that miraculous power, but Bitcoin did.

So the currents will continue to be tracked, no? :) Seriously, we should find out why this system was desired and created in the first place to answer this question. Good question...

If jury is still out on positivity, long term, of AI, I'd really like to see arguments for that. Historically all - almost? - technical improvements were net positive; even some blunders had upside. AI is dangerous, yes, but e.g. fission was developed for the bomb, and now powers significant numbers of households worldwide - the tech less than 90 years old.

I don't think RUD implies launch. It can happen with an engine alone, without rocket.

Expectations are shifted with experience in all areas of human activities.

Can't we, at worst, use Apollo-level suits - maybe actial suits? - for small Moon walks?

First remotely-Turkish descent person in space was Andriyan Nikolaev, the third Soviet cosmonaut (and the husband of Valentina Tereshkova).

List your debts. Create a concrete plan to eliminate them, starting with the smallest. Avoid taking on any new debt this month.

This could be surprisingly hard. You can't get income at some point, and you still have obligations, e.g. a family. You have some things which are hard to reduce (e.g. monthly telecom payments) or have significant upfront costs (you can move far enough to reduce rental costs, but the move will only beneficial after months). It's so much easier to take some debt, at least initially. The author doesn't give good advises for how to avoid getting into debt.

My quote is inexact, of course.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/636007main_R... page 458 of 831, exact quote:

“Everything that Chertok was about to tell you will take a lot of time. An explanation of what caused all the failures while solving the soft landing problem is presented in detail on these posters, focusing on each individual launch. But there is one general cause that explains everything—this is a learning process. In our plans and schedules, we did not make provisions for the expenditure of resources and time on the learning process. That is where we made our mistake; we have paid for it, and I dare say that in the very near future the mission will be accomplished. Our learning process has taken us down a rough road, but we have gained invaluable experience. I request that the commission permit us to conduct a launch and make the final decision, if you deem it necessary, based on the results of that launch.”

You don't see the progress between flights, do you?

In a somewhat similar situation Sergey Korolyov stopped his colleague in front of the Party officials asking a similar question and explained: "We are exploring terra incognita, this is the process of getting knowledge". He was sort of right - even though there were many specific engineering problems, and many of those were rather solvable, especially in hindsight, overall process was stepping into the unknown.

Here we have a cutting edge rocket design - scale, sophistication of engines, design goals - and a commercial evaluation, which path would get to the intended success cheaper. NASA doesn't like public embarrassments, and, as Henry Spencer reminds us, when failure is not an option, the success could be quite costly. So NASA spends billions and many years for a fragile system. If the goal is an airline-like operations, the design should be thoroughly shaken up. It's known that no simulation, no static testing can equate the actual flights in the ability to get the data best describing what conditions the system will encounter in real use. And also, given the industrial scale of Starship production, each flight hardware costs way less than if we'd built them manually, in quantities justifying naming each unit separately.

In Soviet Union, where rocket departments were part of artillery, the testing with actual launches seemed logical. In this case the approach to run a massive test flight program seems logical too, and we can't complain about the lack of progress - first Starship had way less capabilities and performed way worse. In USA we had more than 1000 tests for injector head for F-1 engine in Apollo program, and this number was justified at that time. Starship is way bigger - but the progress is also undeniable, and it would be odd to stop test flights now, when the 3rd iteration of design looks promising.

So, while we can't pin a particular number of tests, I don't think we should worry yet. This year and the next one should be important for Starship program, given SpaceX commitments to help NASA Artemis. If we won't have orbital Starship then - we can come back to this question.

Given that they used 42 of them today

20+10+3=33 on the booster, 3+3=6 on the Ship, total 39.

I remember Elon said they want to add 2 engines to the first stage, but that still would be 41. Where's the 42th supposed to be?

You would perhaps need to change the viewpoint for that. Theoretically, there is nothing which can't be achieved - functionally - without FPGA. However, that doesn't mean some problems can' be solved more conveniently using FPGA, and the solutions turn out better in some regards.