CuriousCosmic

I actually do stand by my assertion in this case. The reason is because unfortunately, after a certain scale, cars are actually actively harmful to growth.

That's why I brought up Texas in particular. Interstate 45 as an example is effectively at saturation. Even if you add new lanes to it, you only get marginal throughput benefits when you actually try to get between Dallas and Houston or commute to either city from the region between them. The same goes for I-10 out of Houston.

Texas has reached the point where car ownership is actually costing the state and local governments astronomical amounts of money for marginal amounts of congestion relief (that is then immediately saturated).

I don't deny that cars have a place in low density regions and I think they are great for specific uses or areas but generally I believe that cars hinder growth in any metro environment in the long term. Doubly so because car centric infrastructure is extremely hostile to anyone who doesn't use a car which makes transition at that density threshold extremely painful for everyone involved.

No. This is something Texas is having to come to terms with right now. Cars and roads only scale so much before you physically can't move more people fast enough even with more roads and more lanes. Rail scales way better.

So Texas is pushing a high speed rail line that will allow people to commute 30-90min into a city from locations that currently are 1.5-3 hours away. And at that allow those people to commute to cities on either ends of the line while still being a relatively accessible commute for anyone in between the cities.

And of course as great as that is, the rail line will be able to relatively trivially scale capacity by adding more trains to the same line at a rate far above massively expensive road expansion projects that cost comparable to the entire planned rail line.

So if you want to grow past a certain density you do have to start switching to rail and higher density does mean more business opportunities and generally greater options for prosperity for the populations in the area.

It really depends. If you break the addiction and it could very well remain.

An example is tobacco/nicotine. If you stop smoking while you are on the drug and you break the addiction and the habit, you aren't going to reform that habit unless you start smoking again. And that's unlikely to occur because you no longer have the habit, you no longer have the chemical compulsion, and you aren't consuming any of it. Maybe stress could force a relapse due to weakness of mind but all things considered that's minor relative to the chemical addiction and the habit forming behavior.

An example where you may see relapse is alcohol or marijuana where the substance comes almost more from a social environment than it does from the chemical draw. Like once the habit is broken, it's still easy to be put into situations where recreational use is common and more or less expected on rare or semiregular occasions. That of course could lead to new habits forming and leading to relapse or it may not depending on what other (hopefully healthy) habits the user is now taking part in, their stress level, and other aspects of their life.

So the answer is of course that it depends but if the drug can reliably help people break habits then it can maybe also be useful in helping them avoid forming new bad habits or relapsing when the urge becomes too strong to resist.

Alternatively if/when starship is up and running it should be pretty trivial to ferry a lot of JDAM-esque weapons up to an orbital launch platform. From there you could practically throw bombs down in a suborbital path to a target and let the JDAM fins guide it in through the atmosphere.

A starship already costs around 90 million USD at cost (estimated based on parts cost currently) and is intended to cost around 10 million USD per launch commercially if it's able to be reused regularly.

And a single launch could carry a lot of bombs (like 50-400 based on the size). So on the high end after factoring in the cost of the bombs, amortising the cost of the initial orbital platform, and assuming a higher cost of like 120 million USD for a single launch, that would still almost certainly come out cheaper than sacrificing an MQ-9 or a much more expensive missile. And of course if you can get that cost down to 10 million USD per launch then other than artillery, that's going to be the cheapest way to deliver ordinance to any location in the world by far (after factoring in the cost of flight time for jets, etc).

The issue is that the F-35 when it's actually being competitive is practically invisible. The US actually has generally had to operate it without stealth coatings or while broadcasting a radio beacon while doing comparisons or competitions against other crafts and weapon systems because in an actual combat environment, an F-35 fit for stealth is completely invisible to electronics (and to a measurable degree eyesight) well within F-35 weapon systems' effective ranges.

So essentially you can't see an F-35 until it is already lined up to kill you. That tends to make it pretty difficult to hit it.

Well the US has a ton of larger process size fabs. There's at least 100 fabs of varying sizes and processes in the US as well as internal supply chain for materials, testing, and assembly. (Where do you think most of the semiconductors containing classified designs are manufactured)

Most are much smaller and more specialised/less automated so they don't have the same kind of production but there are a lot of fabs in the US and a lot of fab knowledge. Of all the countries, the US is one of the few that could probably survive a semiconductor industry collapse outside.

And many of those semiconductors in cheap FPV drones likely are actually fabbed in the US or could easily be fabbed in the US by Intel, Infineon, Texas Instruments, pSemi, NXP, Bosch, Renesas, Micron, onsemi, Analog Devices, Honeywell, Polar, GlobalFoundaries, Microchip, or Samsung, just to name a few non-military facing companies with significant fab operations in the US.

> Like can it produce the propellers, the frames, the motors, the batteries, the ICs to make a FPV drone that blows up in an enemy soldiers face?

Yes

> Can that supply chain be made in the US and how long can will it take to make?

In a limited capacity yes but also in like 5 or so years the answer will be an unequivocal yes.

The F-22 is still a better dogfighting craft than the F-35. In many many ways the F-35 is effectively a commoditised, specced down version of the F-22 geared towards general multi-role operation while the F-22 is hyper-specialised towards killing any other aircraft.

And importantly, the US wants to export the F-35 but keep the F-22 close to chest so that should push come to shove, the US can always maintain air superiority.

Idk how they wouldn't compete in terms of financials.

They are in effect the specced-down mass production version of the F-22 and are comparable in terms of cost relative to similar fifth generation fighters (and even comparable to many fourth generation fights) but go toe to toe with or outperform the competition.

This stacks the deck such that the F-35 will be a peer to or superior to any "opposition" aircraft or anti-air weapon system while the US keeps the F-22 around to serve as a dogfighter that is reserved for fighting the rare circumstance of something that's legitimately a threat to an F-35.

okay so as much as people like to meme on the whole banning blacklist/whitelist thing, it actually makes things clearer to just say blocklist/allowlist, especially for non-native speakers.

People got grumpy about master/slave being replaced with server/client, superior/subordinate, leader/follower, and similar terms but that actually largely benefits as well in that it makes things clearer. Anyone who has dealt with bus protocols that support the more complex "multi-leader" setups or peer-to-peer setups knows how the master/slave terminology can be confusing and potentially limiting in accurately describing the parts of the system.

And the git master/main thing also is more a matter of just making things easier to pick up. Master can be confusing there for the same reasons it's confusing in bus topologies. Main instead is obvious. It's the main/mainline branch of the project. And that also helps set the divide for main vs feature vs maintenance branches (and release tags).

So yeah some of it was done under the guise of politics but that's generally been more about getting an excuse to make the change without people dismissing it rather than the underlying reason for the change to happen.

A quick search on ERCOT's website comes up with this doc

https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2020/07/30/ERCOT_DC_Tie_Ope...

The existing active connections are to SPP. The one inactive AC tie is to MISO I believe (which is getting one of the new HVDC ties) and yes these new connections will be to SERC (MISO and SOCO).

That means these new ties will be directly supplying the local grids of about half of the southeastern market which is a first all things considered.

> There are already Eastern DC grid ties.

Strictly speaking there are only three ties into any NERC interconnection. Two of them are ties into SPP. The other is a single AC tie into SERC but it was only briefly activated after Hurricane Ike and hasn't been activated since.

This new project has ties being built directly to both MISO and SOCO which means the texas grid will be connected directly to two of the four main operators of SERC (the southeastern grid/power market).

They are figs so they do produce the same kind of syconiums as figs but it's not really intended to be consumed by humans because it is small, tastes bitter, and can be a mild laxative. Plenty of other animals consume it tho and it's used a lot for feeding livestock.

A non-compressed version is almost certainly cheaper for anything local (ex self-hosting your own services that consume the firehose on the same machine or for testing).

There's not really a good reason to do compression if the stream is just going to be consumed locally. Instead you can skip that step and broadcast over memory to the other local services.

Other articles (and the underlying research) actually mention this. It's suspected that the acidity killed off most of the younger, more temporary "new growths" (like non-native grasses) in the area and provides suitable conditions for "old growth" plants to quickly expand into the area after the acidity dropped off.

Keep in mind that banyan trees (those massive trees that can basically be a small forest in of themselves) are figs as well. Figs grow incredibly fast and often go from a bunch of vines all fighting to climb for sunlight into a giant fused mass that is a fig tree.

This is the best image I could find (from another article). It's not the same fig but you can see a pretty substantial fig growth in this image.

https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI...

https://www.upworthy.com/a-juice-company-dumped-orange-peels...

Techbros who are chasing the next get rich quick scheme and who often fail to question/critically evaluate dumb or blatantly false statements from their perceived figures of authority/celebrities.

Ehh that's kind of the problem with using a SPDX license tag.

You could have a "negotiable" license as well but it becomes quickly non-trivial to document what the negotiated terms are in your SBOM.

Yeah you could definitely do smaller royalty rates or a step up fee schedule but I know SPDX isn't too keen on people dumping a thousand licenses at their feet to include and until you can easily plug in custom license parameters, I'm not sure if there is a better approach without absolutely blowing up the SBOM with custom licensure.

> Why would you need Hosting, Deployment help, LTS release When you are buying a "one click" aws managed service?

You wouldn't however I was listing them for completeness-sake because they are common strategies employed by FOSS maintainer companies and there's still a market for them outside of the AWS world.

> Are feature or bug bounties even applicable if you have to wait an unknown amount of time for it to reach you via AWS?

That can actually end up being a selling point for moving off the AWS version. If you can effectively "advertise" that and a company really needs a specific feature for their product, that might give them the justification to jump ship to the non-AWS version of the product.

> I'm merely suggesting THAT copyleft doesn't provide you any protection here and WHY that is potentially problematic.

Oh for sure. However I would maybe say that it offers limited protection here (mainly offering protection in other ways) rather than none at all. And that can definitely be problematic no doubt but nowadays I think companies are a lot more hesitant on blindly lumping everything onto AWS compared to 5 or 10 years ago so I'd like to believe that AWS' authority in deciding what is and isn't a viable product is declining in the space.

Of course that can be problematic still but I don't see how they can extinguish the founding company when you are working with a license like the AGPL (with proprietary dual licensing). They are still the upstream and "parasitic downstreams" have very limited opportunities to build trenches with such a strong copyleft in play.

The upstream can provide:

- Hosting (as mentioned before) or assisting in managing colocated infra.

- Proprietary Licensure for more permissive uses (as mentioned before).

- Support/Security contracts for LTS/Enterprise releases.

- Bug & Feature Bounties for priority changes (or a "hire our engineer" type system).

- Contracting and consulting services for companies building on top of their product.

That's just naming a few but there are plenty of ways to build out a reliable income base for a popular open source product as long as you pick the right licensing early on.

That may be true but that's a very different discussion than discussion on competing over cost.

Larger companies are willing to eat a higher cost for the sake of bureaucratic and logistic simplicity.

It would be nice to see a standardised set of proprietary licenses that you can easily dual license a copyleft project with.

Given the way that SPDX is set up, I imagine the ideal way to do it would be to create some standard proprietary licenses and then add exceptions for "small" users that don't want to use the copyleft license and would eventually like to get big.

i.e.

- Commercial-Royalties-1pct

- Commercial-Royalties-5pct

- Commercial-Royalties-10pct

- Commercial-Royalties-Negotiable

- Commercial-Seats-Negotiable

with the following optional exceptions

- Under-100k-USD-Revenue

- Under-1M-USD-Revenue

- Under-5M-USD-Revenue

- Under-10M-USD-Revenue

There's a certain amount of inflexibility that comes from trying to standardise license terms in a way that's compatible with SPDX but maybe an extension to SPDX in the future might improve that and allow you to specify certain terms on licenses more than just basic exceptions.

> AGPL or other copyleft licences don't stop amazon taking "your" product and hosting it for less than your own hosted offering as they don't have to pay the developers.

It doesn't but I don't think I've seen Amazon being cheaper than other hosting options, especially after IO costs.

What AGPL does stop is Amazon writing improvements, extensions, and integrations for your product and then refusing to make them public in a way they can be upstreamed. That's the bigger issue.

Competing on hosting price or on maintenance/support contracts against Amazon generally is going to favor the smaller party because of the AWS tax. Competing against a city's worth of engineers improving a closed source downstream of your product however is going to be a losing battle. AGPL fixes that.

Generally yes but there are ways to repair said seal. The difficult part is testing that the seal is up-to-standard without risking the hardware and data inside.

I feel like fair source exists as a concept mainly because of fearmongering about free software and copyleft licenses. There is little reason projects can't dual license a copyleft license like the GPLv3 or AGPLv3 with a proprietary license.

The problem clearly isn't that the source is available but rather that companies don't feel like they can monetize their products in an open source ecosystem.

However frustratingly these same companies avoid copyleft licenses that would give them that exact ability to effectively monetize (via a dual license) without unduly limiting users rights to use the main version of the product.

They never mentioned building custom hardware anywhere and tbh I don't see why you would need to when reasonably cheap FPGA hardware already exists.

Alinx provides a bunch of cheap FPGA development platforms including SOMs that you can use with custom boards without needing to design the whole thing from scratch.

I'm willing to bet that unless they are doing something particularly exotic, they can probably complete their project using COTS parts without a single custom piece of hardware.

For what it's worth, the nautilus articles normally link to the research and it's generally one of the first few links if it isn't the first link in the article. This article links to the research in this text:

> The research was published in the [Journal of Human Evolution] last week.

The link in question is this one (https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S00472484240008...) but it points to the following DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2024.103577