kidme5

10 ms·

61.
by kidme5 4y ago
...and the Department of "Defense" is a peace organization. Starlink is more than communications for DoD/Ukraine: - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities - https://wikipedi
62.
Starlink Is for “Peaceful” Purposes(twitter.com)
3 points by kidme5 4y ago|2 comments
63.
by kidme5 4y ago
Isn't the chance of nuclear armageddon something like 30% this century?, that should affect the probabilities
64.
by kidme5 4y ago
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_temperature
65.
by kidme5 4y ago
Lossy compression is something Shannon specifically addressed with Rate Distortion Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate%E2%80%93distortion_theory
66.
by kidme5 4y ago
100% efficiency if the back rider just hitches a rope to his peloton.
67.
by kidme5 4y ago
If aliens have the capacity to interact with us, they've probably been doing it for a long time. We're their pet project, why would they invade?
68.
by kidme5 4y ago
It's also possible they're both correct.
69.
by kidme5 4y ago
Maybe they can do both (high speed rail and better metro transportation)
70.
by kidme5 4y ago
More surprised they didn't use 75 feet.
71.
by kidme5 4y ago
"Nothing new under the sun"
72.
by kidme5 4y ago
To "counteract a true force of destruction" You mean the other group of freeloaders on some other part of the marble flying through the black night?
73.
by kidme5 4y ago
Weapons in Space are inevitable with Space Force. Even Elon Musk is involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_satellites
74.
by kidme5 4y ago
The projects now are of a level of militarization comparable only to the (failed) Strategic Defense Initiative in the late 80's. Today the pursuit of artificial intelligent targeting in such a system is what makes it particularly thre
75.
by kidme5 4y ago
My greatest concern today is the militarization of space going on right now[0] (Space Development Agency). The system engineer behind it Michael D. Griffin[1] seems to think the US can "win" all future wars by creating a space-bas
76.
by kidme5 4y ago
Care to elaborate? Mike G also started the Space Development Agency, with a goal of funding govt LEO constellations with specifications matching Starlink.
77.
by kidme5 4y ago
That's the Musk Myth.. in reality SpaceX was built by Mike Griffin who (1) funded him through In-Q-Tel and DARPA (2) crafted the commercial crew program for him while he was NASA administrator. He even went with him to Russia before Sp
78.
by kidme5 5y ago
Now down again
79.
by kidme5 5y ago
It's back for me now (Canada)
80.
by kidme5 5y ago
>> He didn't get handed NASA Funny, about that..read the career bio of Mike Griffin.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin
81.
by kidme5 5y ago
Good to see a take that isn't binary. Hopefully this is the end of Putin's government and the ease of collapse helps us realize our conjured threats for "defense" funding are only making the world less safe.
82.
by kidme5 5y ago
Right, and trying to unseat Putin has historically meant prison or death to its citizens. We can support Russians to create political change, without hardening them to feel like perhaps yes the rest of the world is against them. This is abo
83.
by kidme5 5y ago
Again, space-based intercept takes out the missile within 2 minutes of launch, before hypersonic is deployed. This also stops submarine launch (the space-based sensor layer detects it and intercept comes from space). It doesn't matt
84.
by kidme5 5y ago
No, space-based.. Like Brilliant Pebbles. It's why Space Force is a big deal.
85.
by kidme5 5y ago
Actually interception happens at the boost phase (upon launch) with these systems, so decoys are not possible unless you literally launch multiple rockets.
86.
by kidme5 5y ago
Strategic Defense Initiative 2.0 https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
87.
by kidme5 5y ago
One "solution" is to intercept the nuclear missiles from space. (Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative). It was restarted a couple years ago with commercial involvement. Possibly a Starlink derivative. Putin must be aware. h
88.
by kidme5 5y ago
Hopefully it entered your thoughts after Iraq and Afghanistan?
89.
by kidme5 5y ago
It's more fundamental. First sentence in that link talks about "enemies" as a kind of axiom. In light of Sagan's quote, such concepts are absurd.
90.
by kidme5 5y ago
Carl Sagan had different existential assumptions. He constantly writes about the need for humanity to value it's collective and fragile existence as a whole, whereas the military cares more about WHO gets to exist and which group of

More ›