3 ms·
kind of a disappointing article from the economist. Click-baity title with the obvious answer in the first line of the article. They fail to directly compare th
by habnds 8y ago
kind of a disappointing article from the economist. Click-baity title with the obvious answer in the first line of the article. They fail to directly compare the cost per flight for shuttle v soyuz. No follow up sentence on the possibility of actual sabotage on the soyuz return lander.
- ryanobjc 8y agoThe economist is opinion, filled with motivated reasoning, that pretends to be news. It also confuses breadth for depth and proudly touts it’s meh international coverage. When I want to cancel, I did it via my credit card company. They’re surprisingly anti free market when it comes to taking your money, they add as much friction to exiting the subscription. You have to have at least two magazines labels so you can compare them looking for the subscriber id, then call them. Signing up is a trivial webform though.
- mikejb 8y ago> They fail to directly compare the cost per flight for shuttle v soyuz. That would be a difficult but interesting comparison: You'd have to compare a single SpaceShuttle launch with the cost for launches of 1) Soyuz crew launches and 2) cargo launches that could be covered with the SpaceShuttle's 16t payload capacity.
- wallace_f 8y agoAnd not to mention the article does mention cost problems with the shuttle without going into such detail--which the editors may have cut out.
- jessriedel 8y ago> Click-baity title with the obvious answer in the first line of the article Is this just a complaint about the title rather than the article? Conditional on click-bait title, having the answer on the first line is the best outcome. Teasing an answer would make it a bad article.