People who get downvoted a lot end up with a ‘low reputation’ indicator next to their name. You’ll know it when you see it.
Upvotes in meme communities do not add to reputation.
I think any kind of reputation score should be community specific. There are users whose commenting style fits one community but not another, and their overall reputation should be understood in the context of which communities actually like them rather than some kind of global average.
What did he order at McDonald’s?
Gears have powerbands, CVTs are always in the sweet spot.
Isn’t that basically true of automatics with 8+ gears, too?
Who’s in the middle of this Venn Diagram between “uses some kind of custom OS on their phone to where their camera app doesn’t automatically read QR codes” and “doesn’t know how to install or use software that can read QR codes”?
I don’t have a phone that can scan QR codes.
QR codes are a plain text encoding scheme. If you can screenshot it, you have access to FOSS software that can decode it, and you can paste that URL into your browser.
Leica, Sony, Nikon, and Canon have backed an Adobe-created digital signature solution for authentication of photos directly in the camera, including metadata like time/date stamps. But that’s mainly for journalism and professional grade cameras, not the cell phones that 90+% of new images are created on.
“I don’t want it to be like the butt of today’s jokes, I want it to be like the butt of 30-year-old jokes”
From a business perspective it makes sense, to throw all the rendering to the devices to save cost.
Not just to save cost. It’s basically OS-agnostic from the user’s point of view. The web app works fine in desktop Linux, MacOS, or Windows. In other words, when I’m on Linux I can have a solid user experience on apps that were designed by people who have never thought about Linux in their life.
Meanwhile, porting native programs between OSes often means someone’s gotta maintain the libraries that call the right desktop/windowing APIs and behavior between each version of Windows, MacOS, and the windowing systems of Linux, not all of which always work in expected or consistent ways.
MacBook seamless suspend/sleep performance is like 25% of why my personal daily driver is MacOS. Another 50% is battery life, of which their sleep/suspend management plays a part. I’ve played around with Linux on Apple hardware but it’s just never quite been there on power management or sleep/wake functionality. Which is mostly Apple’s fault for poor documentation and support for other OS’s, but it just is, and I got sick of fighting it.
Thread is a bit more power efficient, which matters for battery powered devices that aren’t connected to permanent power and don’t need to transmit significant data, like door locks, temperature/humidity sensors, things like that. A full wifi networking chip would consume a lot more power for an always-on device.
If this passes for the military, then that will mandate the creation of a parts supply chain, as well as documentation and manuals for maintenance and repair, for whatever the military buys. Once that stuff is created, it’ll be a lot easier to mandate that the existing stuff be made available to the public, too.
That might not make much of a difference for a guided bomb, but it’ll make a huge difference for the huge amount of commercial off the shelf stuff that the military buys: laptops, routers, tablets, phones, civilian vehicles, tools, other basic equipment.
And while information itself can be a “product” or be provided as a service, in most cases, it’s not.
Sure, but my point is that the same is true of physical machines. People don’t want working machines for the sake of working machines. They want working machines to actually do something else, to output a “product” of that machine’s operation.
And viewed in that way, information services are as much a standalone “product” as maintenance/repair services. Information services account for trillions of dollars of economic activity for a reason.
The mechanic is usually the actual worker - you run a repair shop
But what is being repaired? A machine of some kind? And the machine is operated in pursuit of another actual productive activity, right?
Machines are just about the application of mechanical force in some way, and that in itself isn’t an end goal. Instead, we want that machine to move stuff from one place to another, to separate things that are apart or smush/mix separate things together, to apply heat or cooling to stuff, to transmit radiation or light in particular patterns.
Everything in the economy is just enabling other parts of the economy (including the informal parts of the economy). Physical movement of objects isn’t special, compared to anything else: kicking a ball on TV, singing into a microphone, authorizing a wire transfer, entering a purchase order, answering a phone, etc.
I’m not seeing a real distinction between an IT consulting business and a heavy equipment maintenance/repair business. The business itself is there to provide services to other businesses.
NASA funded SpaceX based on hitting milestones on their COTS program. Those were just as available to Boeing and Blue Origin, but they had less success meeting those milestones and making a profit under fixed price contracts (as opposed to the traditional cost plus contracts). It’s still NASA-defined standards, only with an offloading of the risk and uncertainty onto the private contractors, which was great for SpaceX and terrible for Boeing.
But ultimately it’s still just contracting.
NASA has always been dependent on commercial for profit entities as contractors. The Space Shuttle was developed by Rockwell International (which was later acquired by Boeing). The Apollo Program relied heavily on Boeing, Douglas Aircraft (which later merged into McDonnell Douglas, and then merged with Boeing), and North American Aviation (which later became Rockwell and was acquired by Boeing), and IBM. Lots of cutting edge stuff in that era happened from government contracts throwing money at private corporations.
That’s the whole military industrial complex Eisenhower was talking about.
The only difference with today is that space companies have other customers to choose from, not just NASA (or the Air Force/Space Force).
The only problem with that plan is that it takes a lot of energy to raise an orbit that much, I’m not sure how to make that feasible.
Lowering the orbit takes energy, too, unless you’re relying solely on atmospheric drag.
Your original comment said 2050, which is a long way off. SpaceX’s first launch attempt was in 2006, their first successful launch was in 2008, their first successful recovery of a rocket in reusable condition was in 2015, and first reused a rocket in 2017. If they can make progress on that kind of timeline, why wouldn’t someone else be able to?
Physics don’t change fundamentally between 6 meters and 120 meters
Yes it does. Mass to strength ratio of structural components changes with scale. So does the thrust to mass ratio of a rocket and its fuel. So does heat dissipation (affected by ratio of surface area to mass).
And I don’t know shit about fluid dynamics, but I’m skeptical that things scale cleanly, either.
Scaling upward will encounter challenges not apparent at small sizes. That goes for everything from engineering bridges to buildings to cars to boats to aircraft to spacecraft.
The satellite constellation is the natural consequence of cheaper rockets. It’s a true paradigm shift, but the pioneer in this case has only the moat of being able to spend less money per launch. If someone else can deliver payloads to low earth orbit for less than $2,000/kg, then they’ll easily be able to launch a Starlink competitor.
It’s like the relationship between mathematics and accounting. Sure, almost everything accountants do involve math in some way, but it’s relatively simple math that is a tiny subset of what all of mathematics is about, and the actual study of math doesn’t really touch on the principles of accounting.
Computer science is a theoretical discipline that can be studied without computers. It’s about complexity theory and algorithms and data structures and the mathematical/logical foundations of computing. Actual practical programming work doesn’t really touch on that, although many people are aware of those concepts and might keep them in the back of their mind while coding.