SpaceX has been paid on delivery of promised services, and their success rates are much higher. That’s the opposite of control; that’s the government stepping back from owning a company’s costs. Seems to work a lot better than the tight relationship Boeing and government have.

poly fill indeed

It’s Microcheese

Yup, racism. Right out in the open. Upvoted, even.

It’s a gaslighting attempt.

He keeps discovering moisture in his bag, he’s gonna go looking for causes. No causes seem to make any sense, so then he starts thinking maybe bags are always moist and he never noticed before. Maybe not exactly this path, but it will be some escalating set of irrationalities developing as he tries to reconcile what he’s seeing.

Even when a person knows they’re being gaslit, unless they manage to escape the situation with concrete action, it will still degrade their sanity.

In this case, he was lucky enough that she was doing something that could be caught on film easily, and he was fortunate that he actually took the steps to figure out how it was happening.

In other words, he trusted his gut that it wasn’t accidental, and then he gathered evidence to resolve the ambiguity. He handled this correctly, and successfully escaped the damage that gaslighting normally causes.

Man I should have gone to your high school

It’s a US Congressperson engaging in gaslighting another US Congressperson. This is extremely fucked up.

Yeah I don’t think that’s Louis XIV

You can be more direct with it. Going out and doing something you know will fail is failing on purpose. SpaceX fails on purpose sometimes. They don’t just tolerate the risk of it; they set up cameras and other sensors and push their systems to failure on purpose.

Another example of failing on purpose is when you do push-ups until the point of collapse.

They’re blowing it on extra helium to make up for all the blowing helium

You didn’t mention any mistakes though

Well, maybe it’s offset. It’s hard to say whether A > B or B < A when you don’t know the value of either one.

So you’re saying that in the 70s they had predictions about how things will go bad for the next century?

Where are these predictions? It’s been 50 years so at least some of these predictions should be checkable now.

I would feel so much better if I could see some examples of climate science predictions being proven accurate.

Yeah, and now despite what the scientists say, everyone believes climate change is going to render Earth uninhabitable, and we are taking massive steps to avoid the problem as if it were an existential threat, which the science again does not support.

We’re treating climate change as if it were as serious as a planet killer asteroid, and we’re massively violating people’s rights as if it were.

“All the facts” is counterfactual, superstitious thinking. There is no such thing as “all the facts”, except in game theory examples like tic-tac-toe.

In all realms other than small mathematical models, there’s no circumstance under which one has all the facts.

One of the big risks of not having a global communications satellite network is that people can get cut off from the internet by land-based ISPs loyal to whatever local government they’re trying to be free of.

So there’s a danger of just saying “no satellite clusters”.

We’re always balancing dangers against other dangers. There’s danger in not acting, not growing too.

So if moving from PFAS to alternate chemicals means moving foolishly into untested chemicals, why didn’t they wait to test them? Were they forced to make the change?

We will die of starvation because nothing is 100% safe, so waiting until we find that level of safety means we just won’t do anything.

When there’s drag involved it’s different, but in vacuum there’s no relationship between weight and orbit.

Are you referring to the effects of upper atmospheric drag on the orbital maintenance requirements?