notact

To be fair, you can replace ""believes in climate change" with "prioritizes energy independence". I would argue the latter is a stronger motivator for China.

Can you help me understand how alternatives to capitalism, such as central planning, would necessarily be better at preserving the planet?

TIL incineration can involve power generation. I am familiar with the term, but had assumed incineration was basically endothermic and wasteful.

We are already burning coal for power generation, whether we like it or not. I have wondered why we don't "recycle" plastic by shoveling it into the same furnace and a) get some energy out of it, and b) solve the landfill problem. That should be carbon neutral, since burning X tons of plastic is X tons of coal we didn't burn.

My question wasn't so much about the contradiction between regulating & banning authority, but questioning the authority to do either in the first place. I.e. I don't understand why gambling must necessarily be considered to be inter-state. But I now think this is unrelated to the point you were trying to make.

Why is this nonsensical? Gambling is not necessarily inter-state?

And why would “manufacturing”....prepare us for anything else even ignoring that we’d have to regress to do it?

The American production machine (aka manufacturing) is a major component of what won WWII.

My VW has lane-keeping assist. In general I like it, because it had nudged me when I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have. But one failure mode is that it can detect shadows or other artifacts that it decides are lane markers. For example, at the right time of day hanging power lines will create a smooth curved shadow line on the road surface that the car will want to follow where ever they lead. It's not strong enough to yank the wheel out of my hands, but if I were briefly holding the wheel with my knee while reaching for something, it could get messy.

After all of their technical failures, and known cultural problems leading to them, I am astonished Boeing has the nerve to insist it is safe. Seems like they are betting the whole space business farm on astronauts not dying on the way down.

My friend is a tax accountant. I hope I am wrong, but I am worried for her entire profession. It seems more about memorization of the massive & enormously complex tax code, and less about actual problem solving. This seems very well suited to an AI. I suspect such professions will be decimated in the near future.

This is a perfect example of why half the country does not trust the media, including myself. To be clear, I am not a Trump fan. But when newspapers endorse the same party for decades and write editorials like this, TV networks broadcast morning talk and late night shows making it clear who they do & don't favor, etc, I have a hard time believing they are feeding me objective data. They are partially responsible for the massive public distrust that they decry.

Make it opt-in, please.

I guess this sorta makes sense - the slightest slowdown starts to deorbit the vehicle, at which point a particular descent rate becomes difficult to maintain?

I'm not sure why people are misunderstanding my question as "Why not bring more fuel and burn the rockets in reverse". I am simply asking: why not reenter the atmosphere at a shallower angle, spreading the atmospheric braking friction over a longer period of time, which I'd expect would allow more time for the accumulated heat to radiate away before it becomes catastrophic.

I understand the atmosphere is used to slow the vehicle - it's basically free brakes that you don't have to carry with you. I never suggested using rockets in reverse to slow the vehicle down. What I am asking is, instead of effectively standing on the breaks and generating enormous amounts of friction in a short period of time, why can't the vehicle ease onto the breaks and spread the friction out over time so it can be more safely dissipated (via a more shallow reentry angle).

Can someone explain why reentry must be so hellish? The energy gained during the rocket burn into orbit must be bled off during reentry, and that energy is enormous. However, why must reentry occur so quickly? It seems if the descent into the atmosphere was slower, the heat shield would be able to radiate the heat energy away more effectively, thus lowering skin temperatures, and significantly reducing the engineering challenge.

sapiogram made no assertions or arguments, just asked a simple, reasonable and good-faith question. Your response was disproportionately negative.

I see a lot of calls for being able to block an area code. That does not seem to be useful to me, living in a major metro area lots of legit calls (doctors office etc) share the same area code as spammers/political organizations.

What I think would be useful is to be able to block based on incoming carrier. During the last election season, most calls were coming from various VoIP services (Twilio, etc), none from normal retail cell carriers. If I could block an entire carrier who specializes in providing text/voice marketing services, problem solved? Legit business users of those services would hopefully migrate away to more ethical providers when their calls start failing to connect.

The stock market may demand never ending growth, to keep generating positive returns. But how does capitalism itself (private ownership of production) demand never ending growth, any more than a planned economy would?

What are the conditions and steps necessary to engage autopilot during landing? What are the failure conditions, and the steps necessary during a malfunction when autopilot is engaged?

Sure it gets progressively easier as more and more of the door rides horizontally on its rails. But those first few inches where the door is nearly entirely vertical, must be some significant fraction of the total weight, probably >90%.

The "No?" portion of the hypothetical you quoted is designed to filter out your examples. A few lines down from that clearly addresses the need for OT in critical situations.

Yup, and also not getting sucked out the door if you were able to open it (which you couldn't at cabin pressure anyway).

corporate existence as well as profits aren’t guaranteed.

This sounds like a terrible business environment. Are you thinking through the long term consequences of this?

Live webcam of a busy freight railroad down the center of Main Street, in La Grange, KY.

Regardless of what recall means today, in the past it meant a physical visit to the dealership. I believe there are many people (for example my mother) who would see the headline, not actually read the article, arrive at a mistaken conclusion that Tesla's must spend most of their time in the shop, and then spread that misinformation. So I agree, there should be a distinction between "Tesla owners required to visit a dealership" and "Tesla owners' cars receive updates while parked in their garage".

My original comment was kinda ridiculous and was not worthy of a serious response ;) But, to respond to this more seriously, the people I personally know who drive gigantic trucks would most likely be proud of their reduced gas mileage. They already deliberately drive a 15mpg vehicle primarily for grocery pickup.

Unintended consequence: Ford adds another rear axle to the F150.

Both parent comments were likely referring to any entity other than Taiwan. If you are a fabless chip designer or one of their customers, it makes sense to diversify away from Taiwan, even if that comes at Taiwan's expense.

Basically, according to this interesting analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoQCskvoIAY

TL;DW: NK long relied on overwhelming artillery capability against Seoul as a deterrent against invasion. But nukes now fill that role, allowing the artillery stockpile to be used as a currency with Russia.