4 ms·

You managed to get exactly the opposite conclusion from what the parent said. This exchange should be on the wikipedia page for "confirmation bias". Funny af, h

You managed to get exactly the opposite conclusion from what the parent said. This exchange should be on the wikipedia page for "confirmation bias". Funny af, honestly. Just for fun: what exactly could the parent have said to change your mind? Because if the answer is "nothing", then you're a rock.

ethanbond 3y ago
Sure: SpaceX projects are putting up more space-based telescope capacity than they’re removing from terrestrial capacity, with either no variation or a good variation in the types of capacity (i.e. wavelengths). It’s actually super straightforward. The response seems “opposite” what was said because if you read between the lines, the whole comment was about hypothetical future improvements to the cost dynamics.
- radu_floricica 3y ago
  But... cost dynamics are about future movements. And SpaceX is an infrastructure company. It's perfectly fair to say that constructing a road to a remote community will mean better ... everything ... for that community, but you're blaming them for not also building a hospital and a school at the same time as the road. I mean, yeah, technically it's possible that we lose current capacity and we never get enough space capacity to make up for it but if you argue for this particular outcome, I think it's rather improbable. The parent made a very good point: cheaper and better lift to orbit means better ... everything. It would mean you have cost and capacity improvements for the whole chain, and yet nobody bothers to use this for JWST successors. That's a very thin line of probability you'd be arguing for.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    No, it’s more like while building a road, they tore down a rudimentary hospital and school and told people “don’t worry, the road will hopefully make it cheaper to build a new, better hospital and school some day!” And no, the condition doesn’t need to be that nobody bothers to use it, it’s that it doesn’t get used at such a scale on a timeframe people care about to replace the infrastructure it destroyed.
    - radu_floricica 3y ago
      Yes? I mean, imagining a hospital in a place without a road, it must be a pretty rough place. Having a road allows for ambulances, drives to a regional center and so on. I'd take the trade. And "tore down" is a bit of an exageration.

ethanbond 3y ago

Sure: SpaceX projects are putting up more space-based telescope capacity than they’re removing from terrestrial capacity, with either no variation or a good variation in the types of capacity (i.e. wavelengths). It’s actually super straightforward. The response seems “opposite” what was said because if you read between the lines, the whole comment was about hypothetical future improvements to the cost dynamics.

radu_floricica 3y ago
But... cost dynamics are about future movements. And SpaceX is an infrastructure company. It's perfectly fair to say that constructing a road to a remote community will mean better ... everything ... for that community, but you're blaming them for not also building a hospital and a school at the same time as the road. I mean, yeah, technically it's possible that we lose current capacity and we never get enough space capacity to make up for it but if you argue for this particular outcome, I think it's rather improbable. The parent made a very good point: cheaper and better lift to orbit means better ... everything. It would mean you have cost and capacity improvements for the whole chain, and yet nobody bothers to use this for JWST successors. That's a very thin line of probability you'd be arguing for.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  No, it’s more like while building a road, they tore down a rudimentary hospital and school and told people “don’t worry, the road will hopefully make it cheaper to build a new, better hospital and school some day!” And no, the condition doesn’t need to be that nobody bothers to use it, it’s that it doesn’t get used at such a scale on a timeframe people care about to replace the infrastructure it destroyed.
  - radu_floricica 3y ago
    Yes? I mean, imagining a hospital in a place without a road, it must be a pretty rough place. Having a road allows for ambulances, drives to a regional center and so on. I'd take the trade. And "tore down" is a bit of an exageration.