goodSteveramos

9 ms·

1.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
For context on cost, SpaceX only charged NASA $3.1 billion for developing the Dragon 2 manned capsule. Boeing charged NASA $6.7 billion for Starliner and has spend at least 1.6 billion more than that so far.
2.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
Ive seen plenty of unpopular and corrupt oligarchs that were targeted by Putin but are there any well-known names of some ordinary people imprisoned for political speech in Russia?
3.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
Because the cost is probably closer to $10,000/kWh. Makes sense for a $1,000,000 supercar. Fundamentally all the new battery chemistries have serious underreported problems that make them dead-on-arrival. Either short cycle life (nanow
4.
UK police commissioner threatens to extradite jail US citizens over online posts(msn.com)
3 points by goodSteveramos 2y ago|0 comments
5.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
I guess people care more about government abuse in their own countries. Also, do you know what kinds of things people get in trouble for in Russia? I suspect most social media arrests in Russia are related to Isis.
6.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
The UK laws mix language which bans calls to violence with bans on “offensive” speech. So its not about where to draw the line, its about banning criticism of immigration, which you basically cant do without offending immigrants.
7.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
Liberals correctly understand that the uk government is putting conservatives in jail whereas putin’s law will be used to put liberals in jail. Im curious to know what those 400 people said. Do you know?
8.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
The Russian law was also passed democratically, but liberals dont like it because its going to be used against liberals whereas the “hate speech” laws are being used against conservatives. And yes the conservative party in the uk is anythi
9.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
Imagine Tesla decided to charge you 20% of all annual income you earned by driving to work with your Tesla. Who owns your iPhone? Apple or you?
10.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
>different trade offs Different from who? What company in the 1980’s or 1990’s did what apple is doing now?
11.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
Right, but like diet and exercise, we protect the environment for our own benefit, including our ability to visit untouched ecosystems. We dont protect nature because it is more important than humanity.
12.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
> The premise is flawed, therefore the conclusion is moot. Yes but not in the way your dog analogy argues. The reality is that anything humans chose to do is be definition in our nature so strict environmental policy is not a limit on ou
13.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
The optimal balance between natural preservation and human expansion is the one that maximizes the sum of human economic benefit from the expansion and the human phycological benefit from natural preservation.
14.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
The irony of misanthropic environmentalism is that the psychological desire to preserve nature is our most unnatural and uniquely human instinct.
15.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
Cheaper small-battery EVs aren’t exactly replacing petrol cars either. The real future is plug-in hybrids. All the fuel savings of a short range EV and none of the range anxiety or slow mid-day refueling.
16.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
Lol because you’re citing it. A study is not a magic spell you cast to immediately win arguments. Every study makes assumptions and you have to be prepared to discuss and defend them if you cite one. Another basic question, how much energ
17.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
What cost of storage do they use in their model in dollars per kilowatt hour?
18.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
> we found that the total annualised cost (including capital, operation, maintenance and fuel where relevant) of the least-cost renewable energy system is $7-10 billion per year higher than that of the “efficient” fossil scenario. For co
19.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
As far as I can tell, anti-nuclear people either have a very shallow understanding of energy and can’t really have a conversation with you using well sourced numbers or they can but know the numbers show that nuclear is the only realistic c
20.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
“Storage” doesn’t exist. The choice is between nuclear, fossil fuels, and frequent blackouts.
21.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
>when housing is built first there is a lot of demand for transit infrastructure Not if it’s low density housing, which it will be if there is no transit.
22.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
>Increasing the density of jobs, hospitals, restaurants, homes, schools, and more is key … as density grows mass transit becomes essential This guy has it all backwards. No developer in his right mind is going to plow billions of dollars
23.
by goodSteveramos 2y ago
> the “ideological statement” they are making is fuck your feelings Everyone thinks his opponent’s ideology is just spite and hate while his own ideology isn’t an ideology at all and is just ‘the way things should be’. I’m not debating t
24.
by goodSteveramos 3y ago
If they can’t be bothered to mention it in an article hyping up how much new evidence there is, I doubt it has any substance whatsoever.
25.
by goodSteveramos 3y ago
I understand why Google would shut down an expensive gambit like Stadia, but cheap good-will projects like RSS and Podcasts? Why not just keep them running for PR alone? How expensive could they possibly be to run?
26.
by goodSteveramos 3y ago
How much does Boeing make?
27.
by goodSteveramos 3y ago
[new] eyewitness testimony that challenges the US intelligence community assessment that it’s “very unlikely” Havana Syndrome is the work of a foreign adversary. So its still just people saying their headache was a directed energy beam with
28.
by goodSteveramos 3y ago
Correct. I think the idea of this article is to raise awareness so the local residents can pony up the cash to save the website.
29.
by goodSteveramos 3y ago
Yes, but it is the privilege of the people who pioneer a new human endeavor to name things and pick its arbitrary standards and inform those choices with their beliefs. I would prefer people simply register their disagreement if the issue c
30.
by goodSteveramos 3y ago
It’s not inherently offensive, it was the ideological statement being made by those still putting it in research papers that was objected to.

More ›