revscat

[flagged]

You’re still forced to participate in car culture if you use Lyft/Uber/Instacart, you’ve just added middlemen and increased the cost even further.

This comment comes across as incredibly privileged, to be honest. Most people must drive to work. Asking them to use Uber for such a purpose is just… it’s kind of infuriating.

I’m not entirely sure if I understand the point you’re making, but let me try an analogy.

We are all forced to buy a car. There is no one with a gun to our head forcing such a purchase, or a law specifically requiring you to buy a car. But nevertheless the laws are structured so that everyone realistically must buy a car, whether they want to or not.

If you chose not to buy a car then your life will be dramatically more expensive and difficult to live, because of the network effects of this requirement.

So while you are technically free to not buy a car, realistically you are forced to do so.

Is that approximately what you mean?

My experience has been different. Rails is good for everything from small internal projects to larger, enterprise level projects. Like all languages and frameworks, it requires discipline and good practices for the code to remain robust and maintainable, but functionally I’m not aware of anything that fits what you describe in your second paragraph.

How is that relevant to this discussion?

Oh, absolutely. If you look at voting records, the overlap between neoliberals and libertarians is incredibly strong in this regard.

That was 40 years ago. In the interim capitalism has won and democracy is failing. Agreements like Montreal will never happen again, at least not in our lifetimes.

Look no further than the failure of the Paris Agreement and the ascent of authoritarianism worldwide. No one cares about environmental agreements, certainly not those in the rarified airs of billionaires, oligarchs, and other captains 9f industry.

I personally doubt that the American government has the power to be able to do such things. Regardless, the incoming administration will under no circumstances impose such restrictions, or push for them to be created. I seem to recall that the previous Trump administration removed restrictions around asbestos, to give you an idea.

Libertarians gonna libertarian. Even if it kills everyone.

Why on earth would you think that that would ever happen?

As someone who is coming to increasingly believe that 99% of the world problems are caused by powers seeking to intentionally divide us one from the other, I cannot tell you how much joy this brings me to see. I wish you great success in this effort, however small it might appear to be in the scheme of things.

https://github.com/matomo-org/device-detector

List of ports

I know you find it impossible to believe, but not everyone needs is as closed minded as that. I believe there is something going on worthy of the investigation. People like yourself inevitably jump to “lol you believe in aliens lol let me mock you”, when no such claim is or has been made.

And then you call them a liar.

So you can conflate all you like, and will, but that’s your problem. There is no evidence as to the source for UAPs, interplanetary or otherwise.

I do not know what is going on, and make zero claims that I do. The one and only claim I make is that something is going on, but what that exactly is is now.

You, on the other hand, can read minds.

That’s the more fantastical claim.

Unfortunately some people in this comments section are implying precisely that.

I do not see anyone, let alone multiple people, making that claim. Can you link to one?

Sounds like a you problem.

Jesus doesn’t show up on radar.

But if it does, then our understanding is wrong. That means there are new things to discover.

One of the common reported characteristics of some UAP is that they are able to accelerate hypersonic speeds without a sonic boom.

If that is true then there are things to be learned here. You appear to be saying that this obviously cannot be true because it violates what we currently know.

I think that is tragically unscientific.

It doesn't have to be final, it just has to be reasonably descriptive of reality.

Which it only is if you limit cosmology to spectroscopy and ignore UAP. If you start to examine UAP as a real thing, and ask questions about “how”, then it all falls apart.

Which is exciting.

had to spawn pretty near our solar system

Why do you believe that our current understanding of physics is the final one?

Let me propose a thought experiment. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that humanity has survived 100,000 years into the future. Now, let’s put you in a time machine and fast forward you to that distant future.

Would you be surprised to learn that relativity, and the limits it imposes, are viewed by those future humans as anachronistic and silly? Barely remembered artifacts of humanity’s Stupid Ages? That new discoveries were made over those thousand centuries, discoveries that we 21st century humans can only vaguely begin to comprehend?

Because you raised my biggest problem with modern cosmology: it’s arrogant assumption that Einstein is the end. But more importantly, that evidence indicating that relativity is not in fact the end — such as UAPs — is completely disregarded.

And the reason it is disregarded? Because relativity is the end! It’s circular reasoning at its absolute worst.

It wasn’t only video. The reason the planes were scrambled in the first place was because of hits from the ship’s radar. The planes also saw them on radar. The pilots also made visual contact, and testified under oath before Congress as to what they saw.

I’m sorry, but West is not convincing. He has a predetermined outcome in mind, namely, that there is nothing but man-made vehicles in the sky, and that there is zero chance for it to be anything else. Ever.

This conclusion does not match the evidence, and symbolizes a tragic incuriosity about the possibilities the universe holds.

West believes strongly that all reported phenomena will eventually be determined to have a prosaic cause. Further, ridicule and a discouragement of curiosity on the subject are of tantamount importance.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is similar. They both approach the subject with a very unscientific, bad faith attitude.

I disagree with them both. I have experienced something that I do not believe has a prosaic explanation. Further, I do not believe that relativity is the end of physics as Tyson or west so strongly imply.

Curiosity in this subject should be encouraged, not ridiculed.

What’s HN’s take

Usually when UAP-related news items like this make it to the HN front page they don’t last very long. If this lasts even two hours I’ll be (pleasantly) surprised.

Most HN readers, it seems, feel the subject to be abjectly ridiculous and downvote accordingly.

One thing that bugs me about the UFO/UAP disclosure folks is that they assume all military secrecy is part of some sort of coverup and not just normal military protocols.

Who? This feels like a straw man argument. I am not aware of anyone who takes such a (ridiculous) position, and I follow this subject fairly closely.

scientific agency like NASA could be suited for.

That agency was created a couple of years ago. It is called AARO. They just released their FY 2024 report:

https://media.defense.gov/2024/Nov/14/2003583603/-1/-1/0/FY2...

Plenty of humans, unfortunately, are incapable of admitting limitations. Many years ago I had a coworker who believed he would never die. At first I thought he was joking, but he was in fact quite serious.

Then there are those who are simply narcissistic, and cannot and will not admit fault regardless of the evidence presented them.

At this point I believe that any divisive issue is in the interest of Russia, if not wholly originating with it.

Given this, “e pluribus unum” feels rebellious.

Not for the vast majority of the American population. For the vast majority, car purchasing is a de facto requirement for life.

it’s not real intelligence

Hence the predicated “artificial”, and hence the downvotes you are currently receiving.

Your message is largely, if not entirely, a strawman.

I also object to being forced to buy one. You can buy any car you wish, but if you don’t wish? Well, that’s not a realistic option.

staunch resistance

Why?

According to [1] “solar-plus-storage energy projects are already cheaper than new fossil fuel power plants in many parts of the world, and costs are poised to fall further.”

There are links provided there that may answer your questions in more detail.

[1] https://www.vox.com/climate/372852/solar-power-energy-growth...

The language is pretty clear to me. I understand what you’re saying, and suspect that this is an honest oversight on their part, but as it currently reads forks are prohibited.

They may have meant something else, but what it says now is “no forking.”