For some reason this depresses me the most. More than reading about Dr. Fucking Oz becoming part of the healthcare system administration in the USA. (source)
USA's healthcare system is a joke in terms of providing healthcare for people. It is a for-profit business, that's all. So making it worse is not something that depresses me that much especially since I live in Europe and I get great free healthcare. But to see NASA being run by those who want to exploit the space....when NASA is by far the leading agency in space, is quite depressing.
The Idiocracy is here, led by no other than the United States of America.
the LVs they are involved with developing - ie, SLS - are pretty terrible. sX is, _objectively_ (and i'm by no means a die-hard elon-fallating fanboy) revolutionary and the de-facto industry leader.
yes, their rovers and satellites and unparalled, but launch is _the_ most important part of the space economy, and the part most people mean when talking about a company's role in spaceflight.
"economics" is a very detached from reality concept. NASA just needs a taxi to do the important work. SpaceX failed to deliver on their promises and contracts with NASA from what I know, but regardless their "achievements" are hyped to the extreme. NASA space shuttle was also reusable and other rockets before that.
So the "costs" of the launches are a human made up invention of course, based on imaginary money and wrong priorities. We could easily divert a lot of human potential and resources into making these space exploration missions cost nothing, if we were a smart society.
SpaceX, Musk, and the like (billionaires) are simply making space into yet another market and brag about how much "progress" they are doing. Disgusting indeed.
"economics isn't real" is a bold leading claim, which i want you to contemplate a little more.
yes, sX is behind schedule on HLS. so is every other artemis contractor. HLS is *not* (expected to be) the limiting factor for artemis III (rather orion's underperforming heatshield).
this is plainly untrue. shuttle was a disastrous program. the peak turnaround was 54 days, average 190. F9's is 21 days, average 60. even the, which boosters were recovered had to be essentially re-manufactured.
no, no other rocket, before or since, has been successfully re-used.
listen, if you want to argue for som pseudo-communist, gift-based society, _i won't stop you_. *but that's not the world we live in*, money isn't "imaginary", rockets can't "cost nothing".
if you don't follow spaceflight that's fine! i'm just passionate about it. but have the humility to accept you don't understand what "progress" looks like, and spare us your judgment.
Your communism-word-salad may be a sign of you being too trapped into the fantasy world humans have invented, one that is very harmful. From climate change to slavery, useless products and waste. "money" is a human invention, of course. And if we are not to see this we have no chance to detach from its bad influence on us.
When humans put prices on a banana or a rocket launch, these prices rarely reflect the reality of resources, human costs, or even more so importance. We made a whole documentary about it tromsite.com/documentaries/tro…
If you follow the "spaceflight" flavor of the human activity on Earth, and you think we are making "progress", what does progress mean to you in that context?
if i'm being honest, i don't really care about your economic views. i just want you to understand the current spaceflight dynamic.
i understand money is a human invention, but it is a human invention nigh-every human obeys buy. like it or not, it _is_ a measure for efficiency, and if you can't see that the 3,000$/kg of a falcon 9 implies greater efficiency than the 35,714$/kg for SLS, i don't know what to tell you.
I understand, but do you think we can still call it progress if that means we put more commercial satellites into space, more trips for rich people, or exploit other planets for materials?
Like cars are more efficient today in terms of fuel consumption but the entire "car industry" creates a terrible mess here on earth. We better make clean public transport.
there's a tendency to hand-wave commercialisation as "a big bad", but that's still just hand-waving.
regardless, i don't want to argue this back/forth so moralistically. i just want you to understand: sX, objectively, *is an industry leader*. that's all i disputed. they launch the most mass, at the lowest cost (not just price).
SpaceX being the "industry leader" means almost nothing if you disregard the fact that they may just be a taxi for the commercialization of space. And NASA is far more than just launching rockets into space. As @Michael Vogel also said.
And this is not a "moralistic" argument between you and me, it is a fact that commercialization (most of the times) equals to destruction, abuse, and exploitation. On Earth or above ;)
as long as you understand, even if you don't want to say it, that sX _has_ revolutionised space access, that NASA is heavily dependent on them, and that the statements you made earlier on re-use were factually incorrect, there's nothing i want to add.
I cannot accept the statement that SpaceX has "revolutionized the space access" either as a claim or a positive statement. They have built upon what NASA did before, and are helped on a daily basis by NASA (both financially and technically) from my understanding. SpaceX is heavily relying on NASA, without them they cannot exist.
science is built on the shoulder's of giants. no advancements would be made without several thousand years of prior discovery and expirmentation. whether they a helped or funded by NASA is irrelevant - the point still stands: NASA has stagnated in LVs, and sX revolutionised that.
see that as positive or not, i don't mind. but it's an undeniable truth anyone with an interest in rocketry will confirm.
We "obey" this human invention and this is a terrible thing as you can see around you. It is not at all a measure of efficiency. There is no efficiency that the USA imports 95% of the clothes from abroad or you eat tomatoes from across the continent just because is "cheaper" to grow them there and ship over to you. This system is a mess.
As for spaceflight sure you can measure the fuel consumption as a more relevant efficiency progress, but it is no progress if those rockets transport rich people into space, or more commercial satellites. That's where I fee many people fail to make sense of this system. They simply look at these measurements of fuel efficiency and so forth, but not the overall picture.
And "my economic views" are not "mine" or "views" the reality is that this global system of trade is a human made up game that is detrimental to the entire species and frankly obsolete. That's the truth.
I do contemplate about "economics isn't real" - I wrote 2 books about it. tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-t… and tromsite.com/trombooks/#flipbo… - Economics is human imagination going bad. Letting the fantasy of money (trade) rule over important things. Instead of asking how much it costs to to do this or that, we should see how we can do it efficiently.
As for which space taxi is more efficient, I do not care in terms of "economics" but real importance like what is it done with that space-taxi? Put more commercial satellites into the orbit? Go exploit space? Put the rich into orbit?
Don't assume that NASA is a rocket manufacturer or launch provider, they are not. NASA does aeronautical research (they're not just into space stuff). They operate Earth observation satellites, they operate space telescopes, rovers, ...
The JWST, for example, is by far the most advanced space telescope - and in developing it they had to create and research a lot of new things.
And as for SLS: The Space Launch System has to be built on existing shuttle hardware. That's what the Senate told them to do. Even if they tried, they're not allowed to deviate from that because the Senators want each of their states to participate. So SLS needed those solid fuel boosters, the rocket engine from the shuttle, etc.
BTW: NASA also operates the wind tunnels and other research facilities where commercial launch providers regularly perform their tests. Also - for example - the Merlin engine is based on a NASA design, just like the heat shield of Dragon is based on NASA research as well.
Creepy how the world is becoming increasingly idiotic to the point of not knowing what to say about it anymore.
Pretty much all political options people are "offered" are fucked up. A choice between fast and steady decline or faster and more abrupt decline. Now the second is happening.
This world is a joke.
I will continue to do my work for TROM and try to keep myself saner. What else can I do...
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
yah....since these "elections" are basically pushed by the same groups of people, nothing major will change in the "good way". Maybe in the "bad way" (some). It is all a show ran by rich people.
> nothing major will change in the "good way". Maybe in the "bad way" (some)
Sadly the case in most "democracies" these days..... You go vote because you're afraid of the worst candidate getting elected, not because you're actually excited about the candidate you're voting for.
The motorhome we are looking to buy is maybe a bit bigger than that pickup truck in the photo haha. Even if someone would give me that motorhome and it won't be an issue driving or parking it, I would sell it day one and buy a "normal" motorhome.
It is simply insane to me how in US people don't look at this and laugh or be shocked. That is a fucking train.
The absorbingly cinematic Ascension explores the pursuit of the “Chinese Dream.” This observational documentary presents a contemporary vision of China that prioritizes productivity and innovation above all.
The absorbingly cinematic Ascension explores the pursuit of the "Chinese Dream." This observational documentary presents a contemporary vision of China that prioritizes productivity and innovation above all.
"They are as "capitalistic" as USA. Or, in other words, they have a trade-based society. As simple as that. Produce, trade, consume."
That is not what capitalism is. China is functionally capitalist to a degree, yes, but not because they have production and trade and consumption. It's because many of the means of production are held privately, and to a degree they have the capacity to buy and sell as they wish.
Well the truth is that capitalism, socialism, or other isms are vague ideals.
The means of production being privately owned means near to nothing since they are always under the weight of a gov. USA or China. You can't just own a business, meaning be able to trade as an individual under your own rules. You are always restrained and directed by gov, laws, rules, regions.
In essence what we have globally is a society of trade, where trade is the main activity and drive. China, USA, Europe, whatever hey call themselves as communist, free markets, socialist, capitalist, in the end is all about a trade-based society.
It makes a great deal of difference whether the means of production are privately owned or not. For one thing, private companies can and do fail; the government would hardly ever allow one of its departments to shutter based on bad performance in the market. For another, if the government owns the means of production, you have a monopoly; such a thing is barely possible under free market capitalism.
Private companies, if big enough, will be bailed out by the gov. See SpaceX, Tesla, and more. The gov will also intervene to stop monopolies from creating, at least in theory. They split apart the largest telecommunication company in the USA not long ago. So gov is intervening, from capping the prices of drugs, providing subsidies, tweaking taxes, etc..
China, USA, Europe or the rest. The gov is always intervening.
For another, if the government owns the means of production, you have a monopoly; such a thing is barely possible under free market capitalism.
A...sorry what? Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google ?? We live in a world of monopolies. In another book I wrote I showcase that in detail tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-t…
Private companies, if big enough, are sometimes bailed out; I agree. They should not be. That is cronyism, not capitalism. They should be allowed to fail, and indeed sometimes are.
As to monopolies, nearly all of them are enabled by government action, not stopped by it.
Tell me; what does google have a monopoly in? Putting aside, of course, that we absolutely don't live under free market capitalism.
But they are....I am talking about the real world we live in not idealistic concepts. I compare USA with China and their self imposed labels, not the official and mushy definitions of capitalism vs communism since these do not exist.
As to monopolies, nearly all of them are enabled by government action, not stopped by it.
They are enabled by a system of trade that incentivizes companies to grow and individuals to seek profit.
Tell me; what does google have a monopoly in?
Too many things. Mobile operating systems, search engine, browser, online videos, online advertising, etc.. Again see here tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-t… - I spent a year on this book.
Yes, they are..sometimes. Which still leaves plenty of small companies and some large ones that are allowed to fail; that is a good thing.
LIFE incentivizes individuals to profit from their action. That's true under all economic systems.
Nope; there's iOs/sailfish/Ubuntu touch, duckduckgo/yahoo/ask/dogpile/plenty more, firefox/opera/safari/chrome, peertube and odyssey, plenty of other ad companies.
Those you mention are barely "competitors". Google owns the market of mobile operating systems (over 70%), search prob over 90%, video platform, browser, etc.. They even give Firefox a ton of money to keep google as the default search engine. Basically google has no competition in many areas.
LIFE incentivizes individuals to profit from their action.
The environment pushes people to become one way or another. Currently we live in a trade-based society that incentivizes people to profit, compete, be selfish. etc..
Those I mention are competitors. They exist, plenty of people can and do use them, and therefore google does not have a monopoly.
Yes, environments shape people. Please, provide literally any example of an environment where an individual is not incentivized to profit from their action.
Yah those are as much competitors as I am for Usain Bolt. I mean I can run...but have no chance to ever win a race with Usain. Same for Firefox and the like.
Please, provide literally any example of an environment where an individual is not incentivized to profit from their action.
Sure. We have a directory of such organizations where people volunteer without making any profits directory.trade-free.org/
Poor comparison. No one imagines you can run anywhere near as fast as him,. PLENTY of people use the products and services of other companies, me included.
If no one can compete with google in some domains, then google is a monopoly. And that is the case. Read the NPR article don't waste my time here please. npr.org/2024/05/02/1248152695/…
By the way "free market capitalism" sounds like a horror show. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_mar… And partially it is present since big companies control governments in many cases giving them a "free" hand at doing business.
To the contrary. If police is enforcing the law, but some people with power can buy the police officers, their guardian status is dissolved. Same with the gov. Big companies can buy off the gov rendering its guardian status as null. Thus creating a sort of free market for them. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government ;).
You claim that people pay the government to operate in their favor, thereby creating a free market, as define by...the government not intervening. Pure contradiction.
Please, drop me a line when you can reconcile the government getting involved and the government not getting involved. Until then...well, I can see why no one would pay for your "books". Have a nice day,
By the way "free market capitalism" sounds like a horror show. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_mar… And partially it is present since big companies control governments in many cases giving them a "free" hand at doing business.
There is no such thing as "free market". And it does not even matter it is still a system of trade that suffers from the same symptoms: greed, consumption, profit, corruption, etc..
No one "markets" "freely". There are regulations in place. Even for backpacks.
And mostly no I am not greedy but it depends on what situations I face. Look at what I've been doing for the past 15 years tiotrom.com/projects/ - all free. Never made a profit. So likely I am not greedy most of the time.
Of course you need to have a license for producing such a thing, patents, pay taxes, and a license to sell and where to. If you start to make backpacks now and sell them on the street you may be fined. You are also forced to pay taxes for your business and more.
Really? You're not greedy? It's rare to meet someone willing to make such a claim. What a saint you must be.
I said probably most of the time I am not. I released 2 huge documentaries, published over 30 books, made videos, articles, run trom.tf (free services for everyone), tromjaro.com linux distro, and more. All trade-free. Not a saint, but prob not greedy either.
Ok let's move on since you are slipping into nonsense. Please move on. You are starting to troll a little bit and I have a broken finger I barely can type.
The idiots on planet Earth, busy with their dramas, hate, divisions, borders, competition. While they have global problems and common needs.
Their most popular news and activities should be about the wonderful rock they are lucky to be on. The creatures, the places, themselves. There are entire universes inside all of us. Inside even a single cell. There are endless stars and planets out there.
Intelligent species you say!?
Show must go on! The Caesar Roman general was nearly assassinated so now we can gossip, talk, debate, and be busy with this story for months or years. Some empire attacked another killing hundreds of thousands. Have you heard about the wife of the emperor cheating on him?
2024 is the same as 2024 BC. Same shit. Wars, conflicts, gossip, decimation of other creatures and destruction of the environment.
Same idiots, only that now we have internet, electricity and airplanes.
Official music video for Rag’n’Bone Man’s ‘Human’ Track: Human – Rag’n’Bone Man: https://bit.ly/RnBMHuman----------------------Latest Album 'Life By Misadven...
Underlying rights beneath ideas like freedom equality under the law rule of law we find community You Me and all our masks and stories. Wise elders of yore devised ritual stomping into Earth, in communion with planet, land of ancestors, sacred lore. I see your face, study the lines and lessons life has given. Do you see the scarlet streams of suffering so unnecessary missed cues, fear itself, unexpected consequences, collateral damage? If life were simple childish agonies dispelled with dawn’s bright kiss, we would laugh so happy to know cross-purposes, cross-talk easily sorted out in counsel. Cast into sorted cells with little thought to empowering; we could harness the Sun, Moon, birth of the planets, simply allowing our minds to grow.
So ridiculous how people think that they are "free", when in fact we are all imprisoned by rules and laws, many of which are entirely harmful and primitive.
So ridiculous how people think that they are "free", when in fact we are all imprisoned by rules and laws, many of which are entirely harmful and primitive.
When nine-year-old Maya Kowalski was admitted to Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in 2016, nothing could have prepared her or her family for what they were about to go through. As the medical team tried to understand her rare illness, they began to question the basic truths that bound the Kowalskis together.
@gnutelephony This is just inhumane..... There is no other way to describe it and I'm so sorry you had to go through that. Often times when people bring up issues regarding racism and such I've never seen many of them mention this one, maybe there needs to be more awareness about this issue 'cause it's an important one.
0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •the LVs they are involved with developing - ie, SLS - are pretty terrible. sX is, _objectively_ (and i'm by no means a die-hard elon-fallating fanboy) revolutionary and the de-facto industry leader.
yes, their rovers and satellites and unparalled, but launch is _the_ most important part of the space economy, and the part most people mean when talking about a company's role in spaceflight.
Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •"economics" is a very detached from reality concept. NASA just needs a taxi to do the important work. SpaceX failed to deliver on their promises and contracts with NASA from what I know, but regardless their "achievements" are hyped to the extreme. NASA space shuttle was also reusable and other rockets before that.
So the "costs" of the launches are a human made up invention of course, based on imaginary money and wrong priorities. We could easily divert a lot of human potential and resources into making these space exploration missions cost nothing, if we were a smart society.
SpaceX, Musk, and the like (billionaires) are simply making space into yet another market and brag about how much "progress" they are doing. Disgusting indeed.
Georgi likes this.
0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •"economics isn't real" is a bold leading claim, which i want you to contemplate a little more.
yes, sX is behind schedule on HLS. so is every other artemis contractor. HLS is *not* (expected to be) the limiting factor for artemis III (rather orion's underperforming heatshield).
this is plainly untrue. shuttle was a disastrous program. the peak turnaround was 54 days, average 190. F9's is 21 days, average 60. even the, which boosters were recovered had to be essentially re-manufactured.
0x5DA
in reply to 0x5DA • • •no, no other rocket, before or since, has been successfully re-used.
listen, if you want to argue for som pseudo-communist, gift-based society, _i won't stop you_. *but that's not the world we live in*, money isn't "imaginary", rockets can't "cost nothing".
if you don't follow spaceflight that's fine! i'm just passionate about it. but have the humility to accept you don't understand what "progress" looks like, and spare us your judgment.
Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •Your communism-word-salad may be a sign of you being too trapped into the fantasy world humans have invented, one that is very harmful. From climate change to slavery, useless products and waste. "money" is a human invention, of course. And if we are not to see this we have no chance to detach from its bad influence on us.
When humans put prices on a banana or a rocket launch, these prices rarely reflect the reality of resources, human costs, or even more so importance. We made a whole documentary about it tromsite.com/documentaries/tro…
If you follow the "spaceflight" flavor of the human activity on Earth, and you think we are making "progress", what does progress mean to you in that context?
0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •if i'm being honest, i don't really care about your economic views. i just want you to understand the current spaceflight dynamic.
i understand money is a human invention, but it is a human invention nigh-every human obeys buy. like it or not, it _is_ a measure for efficiency, and if you can't see that the 3,000$/kg of a falcon 9 implies greater efficiency than the 35,714$/kg for SLS, i don't know what to tell you.
0x5DA
in reply to 0x5DA • • •re: Q
"progress" means more mass can be put into more orbits more often.
congrats on the documentary & books btw
Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •I understand, but do you think we can still call it progress if that means we put more commercial satellites into space, more trips for rich people, or exploit other planets for materials?
Like cars are more efficient today in terms of fuel consumption but the entire "car industry" creates a terrible mess here on earth. We better make clean public transport.
0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •there's a tendency to hand-wave commercialisation as "a big bad", but that's still just hand-waving.
regardless, i don't want to argue this back/forth so moralistically. i just want you to understand: sX, objectively, *is an industry leader*. that's all i disputed. they launch the most mass, at the lowest cost (not just price).
Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •SpaceX being the "industry leader" means almost nothing if you disregard the fact that they may just be a taxi for the commercialization of space. And NASA is far more than just launching rockets into space. As @Michael Vogel also said.
And this is not a "moralistic" argument between you and me, it is a fact that commercialization (most of the times) equals to destruction, abuse, and exploitation. On Earth or above ;)
0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •0x5DA
in reply to Tio • • •science is built on the shoulder's of giants. no advancements would be made without several thousand years of prior discovery and expirmentation. whether they a helped or funded by NASA is irrelevant - the point still stands: NASA has stagnated in LVs, and sX revolutionised that.
see that as positive or not, i don't mind. but it's an undeniable truth anyone with an interest in rocketry will confirm.
Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •We "obey" this human invention and this is a terrible thing as you can see around you. It is not at all a measure of efficiency. There is no efficiency that the USA imports 95% of the clothes from abroad or you eat tomatoes from across the continent just because is "cheaper" to grow them there and ship over to you. This system is a mess.
As for spaceflight sure you can measure the fuel consumption as a more relevant efficiency progress, but it is no progress if those rockets transport rich people into space, or more commercial satellites. That's where I fee many people fail to make sense of this system. They simply look at these measurements of fuel efficiency and so forth, but not the overall picture.
And "my economic views" are not "mine" or "views" the reality is that this global system of trade is a human made up game that is detrimental to the entire species and frankly obsolete. That's the truth.
Tio
in reply to 0x5DA • •I do contemplate about "economics isn't real" - I wrote 2 books about it. tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-t… and tromsite.com/trombooks/#flipbo… - Economics is human imagination going bad. Letting the fantasy of money (trade) rule over important things. Instead of asking how much it costs to to do this or that, we should see how we can do it efficiently.
As for which space taxi is more efficient, I do not care in terms of "economics" but real importance like what is it done with that space-taxi? Put more commercial satellites into the orbit? Go exploit space? Put the rich into orbit?
Michael Vogel
in reply to 0x5DA • • •Don't assume that NASA is a rocket manufacturer or launch provider, they are not. NASA does aeronautical research (they're not just into space stuff). They operate Earth observation satellites, they operate space telescopes, rovers, ...
The JWST, for example, is by far the most advanced space telescope - and in developing it they had to create and research a lot of new things.
And as for SLS: The Space Launch System has to be built on existing shuttle hardware. That's what the Senate told them to do. Even if they tried, they're not allowed to deviate from that because the Senators want each of their states to participate. So SLS needed those solid fuel boosters, the rocket engine from the shuttle, etc.
Tio likes this.
Michael Vogel
in reply to 0x5DA • • •