ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
That's not the issue. I recognize that some claims to asylum are legit, but I don't think these claims should enable mass population transfers. I also think such a mass-transfer is a greater violation of rights than a denial of a valid asylum claim.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
16d ago
Trump needs massively beefed security, immediately, whether you like him or not.
The good news is that after the first attempt, they seem to be catching the would-be assassins before they get a chance to do anything.
Governments are vastly more powerful than most humans. This is why we limit what governments can do to people
Where? Governments assert broad rights to deploy mass surveillance, control speech, terrorize people with the police for political disagreement, even arrest people on completely arbitrary grounds if they're deemed to be enough trouble.
For example, even if most criminal defendants are guilty, we still want trials to follow due process.
Of course a lot of people claiming asylum in European countries are in fact economic migrants. And of course many of them will not be swiftly deported. But none of that affects the rights of people with a legitimate claim to asylum.
There's nothing in the constitutions and refugee conventions you keep citing, that would prevent a European government from refusing entry to African "refugees", while following due process.
Should this give another EU country the licence to just confiscate property of some other party at gunpoint, because 'taxes are already suspended in the EU'? Clearly not.
All taxes are "confiscating property at gunpoint", and countries clearly can decide their tax policy.
At the end of the day, the migrants in Belarus were shipped there with the explicit goal of annoying the EU.
This complaint seems a bit incoherent. I'm constantly being told that immigration is a benefit to the host country, how can that be annoying?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
16d ago
next yearscratch that, it's a shit show, next couple years.
I appreciated the laugh, thank you.
unreasonably impatient.
Maybe, but I'm not the one that set the deadlines. You said yourself, we were scheduled for next year to go to the moon, and I won't even mention Elon's private Mars ambitions.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/yearly-number-of-objects-launched-into-outer-space
Admittedly that's a tough number for me to debate. I will notice that this is the number of launches, and not their cost, but I am aware of the implication that such a number would not be sustainable if the costs weren't appropriately low. That said, I would one day like to see an independently audited cost breakdown of these launches, because I do actually think what we're seeing is unsustainable, at least as far as the public-facing part of the company goes. For all I know SpaceX is a front for launching Black-Ops satellites without raising too much suspicion, and is appropriately awash with money.
You are seeing what the early part of an era of exploration or expansion looks like.
(...)
Then given that we are literally on the 5th test flight ever of a new degree of capability, historically speaking 50 years from now would be very soon, let alone 15 or 5.
That's all fine, but shouldn't we then leave declaring new eras of exploration to historians? With everything you've written, it sounds like something that won't become apparent for quite a while.
For example, the Saturn 5 rocket of the Apollo program to the moon had a LEO lift capacity of 118 tons, and about $5.5k per kg. The Starship is expected to have a LEO lift capacity of 100-150 tons, with a forecasted cost of around $1.6k per kg... possibly falling to $0.15kg ($150/kg) over time due to to reusability reduce the cost per flight as you don't have to keep re-making the whole thing.
There's a few issues here. One is - wasn't Saturn 5 optimized for the flight to the moon? It could deliver 50 tons to the moon in a single shot. Starship might have good (forecasted) performance to LEO, but it simply cannot make it to the moon, and even according to best case scenario projections will need a dozen or so refueling launches to reach the moon.
The second problem I have is the "falling over time do tue reusability", why hasn't this happened with Falcon 9? I consider it's announced costs to be a bit sus in themselves, but even taking them at face value, you don't see them dropping over time.
Finally, the third problem is that it's a forecasted cost. Musk's entire MO is announcing some product promising insane performance, falling way short, but acting like he delivered because you can buy something that looks vaguely like the announced product. Wasn't self-driving supposed to be safer than a human driver 7 years ago? Wasn't the Cybertruck supposed to be nearly indestructible and cost as low as $40K? Wasn't the Roadster supposed to be in production in 2019, and offer some insane range like 600 miles? Wasn't the Semi supposed to beat Diesel trucks in terms of costs, be competitive with rail, and be guaranteed to not break for a million miles? Wasn't the Boring Company supposed to cut tunnel costs to a fraction of what they were? What makes you so sure he'll deliver on Starship any better than he did on any of those?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17d ago
I really want to contradict you and drop a lizardman joke, but even at my tinfoiliest I have to admit you're right on this one.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17d ago
Huh, the only comments on it that I can find right now are this one in response to you, and this one in response to @self_made_human. I swear I shook hands with both of you on something like 50 USD.
Unless we made the actual bet later, it seems like there's 2 years left.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17d ago
No? Every single launch to date was on a suborbital trajectory. It made it to orbital altitude I guess, but that's not an orbit.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17d ago
Independent watchdog NGOs routinely declare elections flawed or invalid because of censorship
Do you have an example? I don't really follow election watchdogs, so I never heard of one complaining about censorship, but it would be funny to compare and contrast with western elections.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17d ago
I think it was "Starship makes it to orbit". Can't remember if it was 5 or 3 years, but have the posts saved somewhere.
While it's looking 50/50 on the first bet, I'm like 90% sure the moon thing isn't isn't happening, unless they pull a switcheroo and it turns out they can do it on Falcon Heavy or something. Starship, according to the official docs, will need something like a dozen refueling launches to go to the moon, and that's the optimistic scenario.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17d ago
Yay, I love bets! $50?
And just to be clear we're talking "back to the moon on Starship", or at the very least one of SpaceX' rockets, right?
Also: this will either need to be a" donate to charoty " type bet, or we'll need to find a convenient way to send money anonymously.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17d ago
I don't know how to compare these, when the books for one are public, and for the other are not.
And if it's so much cheaper, where is the new era of space exploration? Weren't we supposed to be well on our way back to the Moon by now? Do you think we'll get there any time soon?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
17d ago
I think it's wrong to call that a "lucky" catch, but at the same time - so where is the new era of space exploration? Wasn't Falcon 9 already supposed be rapidly reusable? You're not worried that they haven't bothered putting even dummy cargo on the upper stage? Or the fact that they were supposed to be half way to the moon by now?
It seems from animal models that growth hormone increases growth speed but not where you end up? Not sure why you hope this is a silver bullet. People are probably dismissive because it doesn't seem to be something that is currently possible.
I never got around to reading up on it, but apparently you don't need to look at animal models, as trying to control human height with hormones is a thing that actually happened IRL. If you want a summary, and don't mind reading someone with an axe to grind, Mia Hughes wrote a chapter on it in the WPATH Files (it starts at the bottom of the page: "Engineering Children’s Height With Hormones").
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18d ago
Correct!
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
19d ago
They were remarkably impartial. Every single user was getting the exact same amount, regardless of the their politics, or any other factor for that matter.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
20d ago
Well, it's not the Mongolians either.
I thought "Hallow" basically means "Saint" / "Holy"?
Yeah, I do.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
20d ago
Where do you think it came from to my country? Mongolia?
You can have it. I'm not American, and just want you to stop shoving it where it doesn't belong.
I also don't quite remember saying the above quote. I'm not one for "uniting all of us".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
20d ago
+1
I absolutely hate Halloween. Reject Halloween, RETVRN to All Hallow's Day.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
23d ago
Last week it was my time turn to get knocked out by the flu, so I didn't get anything done. This week, I have some major work-related activities, that will likely get in the way of any hobby stuff. Hopefully things will calm down during the weekend.
@Southkraut, how are you doing? Didn't try it out yet, but there does indeed seem to be some buzz around Redot.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
23d ago
No, it's not an important part of my argument, though I think reactiveness does describe a lot of these incidents.
Then that's kind of lame. What's the point of bringing up the reactive nature of something, if proving it's not actually reactive won't change your mind in any significant way?
and indeed, the people screaming about "Woke Disney" probably aren't
They don't have to be representative to be right about why Disney's stuff fails to resonate with wider audiences.
Since we keep going back and forth about exactly what the other person is claiming, here's my claim
This is all fine, except, as you noted, it's just a claim. You shouldn't get call disagreement with this claim "ridiculous", and your portrayal of yourself as the more moderate and gracious, further down the chain, is in especially poor taste given your behavior.
They also like to make money. I submit they like to make money more than they like being woke.
This would be the crux of the disagreement. If this was true, we would routinely be seeing them sacrificing wokeness, for money, not the other way around. Sure, they need money, and there's a boundary on how much losses they can tolerate, but they're clearly willing to tolerate monetary losses, if it means more wokeness.
There might be an element of incompetence, in that they underestimate how much a given movie release will cost them, but the lack of significant colourse correction shows that they're not too bothered about it, this showing that they don't necessarily like to make money more that they like being woke.
Additionally, I think most of the people involved in making these things genuinely believe they are making a good product.
Yeah, but they think that what makes it good is the wokeness. And while I can't tell what's going on in their minds, my guess is that even when they think it's good, they are aware it's not going to be that popular, or a moneymaker.
Is that correct?
I already contradicted enough of the points you raised, that you should know that it isn't.
I already pointed out that "Oh, you liked that movie? Fuck you." is just one of the possibilities, and "made with little or no thought to profit" is a return to the kind of binary thinking I already criticized.
And that the money men signed off on this, because they were okay with shitty virtue-signaling that doesn't make money.
Whether these money men exist in the way you are implying, and if they do, do they have all that much influence over the creative process, is an open question.
You probably could have saved yourself some time, if you agreed on this metric ahead of time. Personally, it seems like a pretty bad approach to measuring who's more in touch of the common man.
More options
Context Copy link