SkittyDog

The more efficient implementation is SpaceX's BFR. The United States will be able to buy BFR launches that carry bigger payloads than SLS, for a fraction of the cost. The SLS program provides no additional functionality over BFR.

So we're spending billions on this giant Welfare Check to certain congressional districts and aerospace contractors. If we cancelled SLS, we could do a lot of other exciting things with that money.

If you believe this phenomenon started in Texas last year, you might want to do some research, and correct your post. It's been going on a lot longer than that.

It's not clear whether Russia actually has an operational HGV capability, or not.

For the record, it's also not clear with Status-6 is operational, either. But the technology behind Status-6 is pretty much all stuff that we already know they have working, whereas HGVs maybe not so much.

This is very much a solved problem, for several decades now. US and Russian naval submarines routinely patrol for thousands of miles over weeks or months, without surfacing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_navigation

It's not mentioned in the article, but I believe US subs also have a long-tether communications buoy that can float to the surface, but not expose itself vertically, to communicate with satellites. I would be surprised if it did not also have a GPS antenna.

It's helpful to recognize that the family of things commonly called "Marxism" is not a singular school of political economy. Over the 20th century, Karl Marx's original theories and philosophy have constantly evolved, branched off, and swapped DNA with other areas of thought... The easy examples are Leninsm, Trotskyism, Maoism, postmodernism, critical theory, but there a thousands on thousands of identifiable influences that Marxism has left on politics, economics, history, literature, art, game design, language, philosphy, and more. It's hard to imagine many humanities fields without their modern Marxist stripes, so deep runs the inheritance.

This part isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a well documented and well-studied phenomenon. Marx and his intellectual descendants have massively shaped the modern world. And that includes the Western-aligned societies that stridently rejected Communism during the Cold War.

Even the conspiracy theory has evolved over time... the modern versions you hear about on Fox News have changed a bit from the old Nazi stuff.

I can understand why you might think this, but you're factually incorrect in this case.

In the United States, the supply of medical doctors is artificially limited by state laws that prohibit the practice of medicine without a license. Licensing requires successful completion of an accredited medical residency program, which on turn requires completing an MD degree from an accredited medical school. The American Medical Association and similar state-level groups effectively control the number of residency and med school slots by controlling the accreditation process.

Most of the rest of the world has similar systems in place, including India.

On the one hand, the AMA system has been described as a means of guaranteeing the quality of doctors, and preventing unsuspecting patients from being hurt, killed, or defrauded by poorly trained doctors.

On the other hand, it's also been described as cartel designed to allow doctors to charge inflated prices for medical care, by limiting the supply of doctors, and extracting unreasonable rent from the public.

Most economists would agree that both descriptions are basically correct.

Because it's not a "free market". The supply of doctors is legally limited... It's illegal to practice medicine without being licensed. And the number of licenses granted is limited.

The license limits could be direct, like taxi medallions in New York City... Or the limits can be indirect, like how the AMA defines the number of medical residencies in the United States.

Even in supposedly "free market" countries like the United States, we often have significant restrictions on all sorts of markets. The reasons vary.

Interesting thing about the term "nonce"... that etymology is not entirely accurate. It's not quite a false etymology, but it is a sort of a "backronym" kinda thing.

In linguistics, the term "nonce word" describes a term invented for a specific occasion/purpose where you have a need for a term that isn't met by existing language: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonce_word

So the cryptographic term "nonce" was a reference to the existing linguistic terminology, which IIRC goes back pretty far, maybe into Old English.

I don't know exactly when/how the "number once" thing came about, but it's definitely become a valid definition in its own right... And a very useful mnemonic, as you pointed out.

I worked five years in the game industry, mostly on (guess what!) security and infrastructure for a Very Large F2P game. I was nowhere near game design or any part of the game loop itself, but I did a lot of work on our account system.

> > In practice, it may well be more complicated than that

> No, its not...

You keep assuming that the information you already have is ALL of the relevant information about this issue. You're just a Monday Morning Quarterback, and you have no way to know whether the situation is more complicated than this. So you can't possibly make absolute statements about this... Unless you happen to work at Valve, on something that has given you actual experience with the Steam account system.

Most game are not priced at zero... And games are definitely not a regulated part of the software industry in America.

Also, your original statements are both phrased in a way that implies "all". You failed to qualify blanket statements by saying (e.g.) "some". So if you don't want to admit you're wrong, fine: You're doing a poor job of communicating your thoughts.

As to evidence of that, just count the number of replies you got that came to the same conclusion I did about an implied "all" versus an implied "some".

Not like it matters, anyway... The counter-example if games alone pretty much kills your whole argument about regulation being correlated with higher prices.

I think you are clearly a very smart person, and a very good programmer, who is suffering from the Dunning Krueger Effect in relation to the topic of Economics. Regulation can effect costs, but it's far from the only factor, and it's not even necessarily an important factor depending on the situation.

I think this guy is a troll... Take a look through his comment history. He's prolific, but seems inclined to say ridiculous stuff to get under people's skins.

Neither of those statements is true... Are games priced at $0? Will Amazon give you AWS for free? Do Apple and Google let you use all their mobile apps for free?

Sure, FOSS is a thing... but plenty of software ain't FOSS.

Re: regulation... Plenty of software is regulated by law. Ever heard of PCI compliance? Banking? Insurance? Tax prep? Medicine? Military? Flight avionics? ... All of those industries are heavily regulated by law, and some ofbthose regulations govern their software, too.

...or so say the guys sitting in the cheap seats. In practice, it may well be more complicated than that, and involve all sorts of other tradeoffs. It usually is.

I don't care how well it would work, and I'm not arguing any of your points... I don't even understand why you people like these video games, so I'm the last person who should opine on what constitutes a good UX.

My comment was intended to point out that it's parent comment didn't bother to read the grandparent comment, which had clearly answered the question it was asking.

But then the parent comment author edited themself, I assume to avoid looking foolish. So I guess it's irrelevant now.

I'm not an expert. I did some undergraduate courses in neuroscience, and one of those covered how various instruments work, including MRI, EEG, and a few others. I would invite anyone with a better education to correct any errors they can identify in what I've said.

And yes I DID just refresh myself on those WP articles I mentioned :-) and they seemed pretty well written, to me.

I also owned a NeuroSky a while back, and IMHO it was not very useful... But that's because it was a toy, not a medical device. Same underlying measurement principles, but very different in terms of actual operation.

One of the main differences is that medical devices are always attached to bare skin with conductive gel applied under the sensor. Also, medical devices have more sensors. This vastly improves the signal quality, as compared to the toy devices.

In research work, medical EEGs have been successfully controlling computers for several decades, long before NeuroSky or the Necomini ears came to market.

Tl;Dr, you don't need an FMRI to control a computer... EEGs work fine, but none of the existing EEG toys have been particularly well designed in that regard.

EEG and MRI are based on two completely different physical measurements. They have nothing whatsoever to do with each otyer, in terms of why they work. Medical EEG machines are very small, and their size relative to MRI machines does not factor into how effective the EEG is.

I mean, would you doubt that a stethescope can work, because it's so much smaller than an MRI? No, that would be ridculous. Same with your comparison vs EEGs.

Just read the WP articles on MRIs and EEGs. You'll understand it.

I'm not trying to correct you by calling you out... I assume you're a lost cause, already. But hopefully other people reading this will think twice before they act the fool.

They already answered this question in their previous post... The fraudster scales up their account creation. You ban then after 2, they switch to a new account... which you ban after 2, and they switch to another new account, which you ban after 2... and so on, ad infinitum.

You don't seem to know very much about the redesigned lids. Disposable coffee lids in the US changed drastically following this lawsuit. It took a few years, but the quality of disposable cups/libs used to serve hot beverages to-go is vastly higher than it used to be. I'm surprised that you don't know that... There's a lot of legal scholarship on this topic that specifically discusses that shift, and analyzes the impact of this lawsuit vs other causes.

But then, you also don't seem to know very much about product liability in US law. Manufacturers are held to surprisingly high standards in the US, and McDonald's conduct before & during this trial actually shocked the legal community. Their position was seen as surprisingly risky, given the fact pattern.

Your knife example is pretty silly, and I'm not sure why you expected it to prove anything. Legal hypotheticals are sometimes useful analytical tools, but you have to actually construct the hypo case to distinguish a relevant legal principle or fact pattern... Your example does none of that. It's just an obvious tautology, and there's not really any argument contained in it.

Again, I would encourage you to educate yourself, instead of just making a lot of assumptions that are emotionally convenient to your preconceived notions.

So you actually quoted the part where it mentions improving their cups... And then you seem to have completely ignored it in your own commentary. Redesigning the cups with more rigid foam (and the plastic lid lip IIRC) was a pretty big deal at the time, and it made a significant impact on the possibility of spilling.

But the bigger problem is that you're still ignoring that your mind has been captured by the propaganda that demonized this woman as a greedy opportunist, and cast our tort system as a lottery for lazy, evil people to enrich themselves at the expense of honest hard-working businesses.

The woman asked that McDonald's pay her medical damages, only... And those damages were extensive... Can you even imagine how much surgery is required to treat 3rd degree burns to the genitals? Major skin grafts, permanent horrific scarring. You'd never regain full sensation again, and it's likely you'd never fully function sexually afterwards.

The jury decided to award massive punitive damages, in large part because they felt that McDonald's conduct after the injury was so shocking that they felt compelled to send an equally attention-getting message to the corporate executives who had treated this woman with such callous inhumanity.

And the punitive damages were reduced on appeal, anyway, which shows that the tort system does work. McDonald's paid their lawyers more than they paid the defendant... And they would have only paid a tiny fraction of that amount, if only they had evolved a bit of conscience at the beginning.

I thought it was pretty clear that it is colloquial language, and that the italics are for emphasis... For example, "They blew his head off.

In the future, maybe you'd be better served to trying asking the other person how they meant it, rather than jumping to correct them.

Unless your actual purpose is mainly to aggrandize yourself by dunking on someone else by correcting them... In which case you should just carry on, as you have been doing.

In the US, the idea of "separation of church and state" is very imprecise. The actual law is the First Amendement to the US Constitution, and the various Supreme Court decisions that have interpreted and applied it.

Go read the text of the First Amendment, and tell me where you got the idea that the military can't provide chaplains or religious services, on an egalitarian basis, to people in the armed forces.

Religion is a critical part of the lives of huge numbers of human beings. While it's not for everyone, emotionally healthy, mature atheists and non-believers generally understand and accept that religious beliefs and practices have for our neighbors.

I'm an atheist. I'm also truly glad that the Air Force is providing space for worship, employing chaplains, and encouraging it's people to participate in their religious activities. Given the hardship and isolation of serving at Thule, I think the least we can do is to help them meet their religious needs.

So you think the $10/month fee for existing services is what induced the phase change? I've done hundreds of these searches, paid maybe $20 total.

I have a different theory about why this bugs you... Previous to today, you were ignorant of that these records were available online so cheaply and quickly. Nothing has really changed, except your own anxiety levels as your worldview struggles to absorb this information. But your brain wants the change to be external, because that's less threatening than the realization that this capability has been lurking out there in the world, all along.

When someone says "He got his head blown off" in reference to a cranial gunshot wound, do you also pull this "WELL AKSHUALLY..." routine on them, by pointing out that the victim's head is still attached to their body?

The characterization of "melt the genitals shut" is not a precise medical, physical, scientifix statement. It's a colloquial, even poetic phrasing, and it does a FANTASTIC job of describing the impact of this woman's injuries.

You have been and taken in by propaganda. Please take the time to read the wikipedia article that the other commenter linked, and learn the truth about this incident. You deserve better than to continue having the wool pulled over your eyes.

Lexis has the best search capabilities, but there are dozens of cheap clones now that start at $10/month to search these same records.

You're all missing the point... ANYbody with a Lexis Nexus subscription, or a Bloomberg terminal, or one of those background check sites, already has this exact capability. It's not new.

You dont need to be a lawyer to access any of it... I think the other poster simply meant that lawyers generally have Lexis subscriptions, already.

Also, the various court databases this site is searching are ALREADY online and publicly available, and have been for years. This is just providing a free, unified interface with a fast search index.

I think you may be misunderstanding what this is... All of these documents were ALREADY public records, and were ALREADY available online. Most US courts have been publishing these records online, for a while now.

And they are ALREADY other websites/search products that provide a unified search interface... Lexis Nexus is probably the biggest/oldest, and I believe Bloomberg also has this feature... There are dozens (if not hundreds) of cheap public record search websites that charge $10/month for it, too.

If you're surprised by all this, you haven't been paying attention... For a few decades now.

But most infant deaths before 1900 were from infectious diseases that didn't even exist in human populations until our ancestors lived in large enough groups to become disease reservoirs.

But your response just proves the meta-point I made, in my earlier comment... If you don't have any qualifications in Neolithic anthropology, and you're not citing any evidence from people who DO have those qualifications, then your uninformed speculations are just fairy tales.

In not against unqualified speculation... Just don't be surprised when people point out that you have no idea what you're talking about, and that you're probably wrong.

"My guess is that..."

Would you be able to provide some of the evidence that led you to this guess? Or maybe you could give us your credentials, whatever education and experience you have that qualifies you to make guesses in the field of pre-Columbian Neolithic archaeology?

Let me make it simpler: How do YOU know that 2-year-old death was "common" among these people, at this time? What supporting sources to this putative fact?

I can understand being skeptical of the article author's conclusion, if they did a poor job explaining themselves... But your counter-hypothesis is just creative writing, without something a little more solid to back it up.