Ajedi32

34 ms·

781.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
> This is just a different bad incentive; it incentivizes police to completely ignore situations If the societal cost of enforcement exceeds the societal cost of non-enforcement, then perhaps they should ignore the situation. > or t
782.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
How would that help?
783.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
That's a different situation, because at least there it could be argued the damage was ultimately Seacat's fault for engaging in a shoot out with law enforcement on someone else's private property; the police were just doing
784.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Are you actually legally on the hook to pay? Or are they just going after you because they think they have a better chance of getting you to pay than the government?
785.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Broadly speaking, I feel whenever you have to build into a law specific cave outs for perfectly innocuous behavior that would otherwise be illegal under the law as written, it's not a very well thought out law. Either the behavior in q
786.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
> the fact that he has this much power totally unchecked. I think this is just a symptom of the amount of power the office of the president has accumulated over the years. Musk has no authority on his own; he's acting on the authori
787.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
The ESA's estimate is a bit lower, at 0.1 MT: https://neo.ssa.esa.int/search-for-asteroids?tab=possimp&des... I'm guessing there's still a lot of uncertainty.
788.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
> zero chance they can make a brand new, high output jet engine in one year Not one year. "produced by EOY '25" means they're almost certainly already very far along in the development process. There's no way the
789.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
If you're going fast enough, you don't need lift. But judging by "in four hours" I'm guessing he's imagining something somewhere in between those two extremes. High enough to substantially reduce drag, low enou
790.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Once you get out of the atmosphere, drag (and fuel consumption) is ~0. So theoretically possible, but I'm not sure if that's what he was talking about. Certainly Overture won't be capable of that.
791.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
It's obviously not going to be competing with prices from 60 years ago, it'll be competing with prices from today. Probably with first class tickets and private charter flights. I'm sure there's probably a suitable niche
792.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
That feels like a "I'm not touching you" sort of argument to me, assuming your intent is to argue that the first amendment doesn't prevent the government from banning people from spending money on speech.
793.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
None of that refutes GP's point that money does equate to speech in a very real sense. (At least when it's spent on speech.) You seem to be agreeing on that point, but saying we should have limits on how much certain people can sp
794.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Basically this. Most of the commenters here seem to be taking it on faith that these government organizations are necessary and serving a crucial function. But the entire thrust of this election is that the majority of the country doesn&#x2
795.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Is DHS "other", or "defense"? Regardless, I think the primary costs created by regulation aren't directly to the government budget, but rather knock-on effects of compliance incurred by the entire nation's econ
796.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Reminds me of bad map projection #45: Exterior Kansas[1]. [1]: https://xkcd.com/2951/
797.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
New Glenn isn't a "version 2". The name is a reference to John Glenn, the first American to orbit earth. Think "New York" not "New iPhone".
798.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
The way kids learn to "deal with people" is by becoming more and more like them until they fit in. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the people in question.
799.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
> I think making B39 free, funded by the fee Where exactly are these congestion fees going, if not to funding transit?
800.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Life is regressive. Charity is a good thing, but not every single conceivable public policy has to include a charity component. Charging citizens a reasonable price for the cost of services rendered is a perfectly fair thing to do. The fact
801.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
While this is true, roads are also expensive; particularly in places like dense cities where space is at a premium. It makes perfect sense to charge road users for their consumption of of an expensive, limited resource, as long the price is
802.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Just another unintended consequence of road use being free for its users, despite road space being a limited resource that's expensive to build and maintain. Congestion pricing is already a (crude, but still rather effective) way of so
803.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
> Both government and private can be efficient or inefficient That's true. The difference is that inefficient private organizations go out of business, while inefficient government organizations tell congress it's because they
804.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Why is it dangerous? (Unless they're breaking the speed limit to make the light, obviously.) Just the risk that they might misjudge the timing and enter the intersection after the light turns red? But lights have a built in delay befor
805.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Even if Starship never carries humans (something I would debate you on) it would still qualify as a "marked improvement to private spaceflight capabilities". It may well clear that bar in a few months in fact, after they demonstra
806.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
I agree, though I do think it says a lot that some variation of this comment gets posted every time the subject of Blue Origin comes up, to the point where it's almost a cliche. It's a little unfortunate that New Glenn is merely &
807.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
Market failures do happen, so I'm not claiming consumer choice is the perfect solution in every case. But consumers aren't stupid either; if this _were_ a mainstream concern the market _would_ self-correct. But it hasn't self
808.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
> the ones who do know don't care because they wouldn't be able to (technical knowledge) or want to root/unlock and utilize the capabilities This is a good point. Some of that is perhaps self-perpetuating: Why root if ther
809.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
I just call it "Software Freedom", like GNU has since the 80s: > the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you I don't necessarily endorse all of Stallman's philosophy on so
810.
by Ajedi32 2y ago
> I think the only way is to give the right to flash firmware of _ANYTHING_ that has programmable bits This seems reasonable to me. What's wrong with it?

More ›