"Companies who have a diverse workforce have higher profits" It is way more complicated, and those McKinsey reports are deeply flawed. Mainly because they are not scientific and they do not prove causation. In those reports the word 'correlation' is used quite often - from scientific point of view this is garbage. Here is short explanation: All big and successful US companies are pressured to implement DEI, by activist investors and government. As they grow bigger they can afford to hire less capable but more 'diverse' people, and they do so to avoid lawsuits. Those hires are somewhat detrimental to the profits, but lawsuit would be way worse. US is leading in some industries, so US companies are shown as the most profitable - and by the means of forced DEI they are also the most "diverse". There is no control group here, we don't know what would have happened if those big companies weren't forced to do DEI hiring. Plus there are more flaws: 1) Companies in McKinsey reports are not the most diverse - they merely have more DEI hires in senior management. The reports that you cited are all about upper management, not workforce. 2) Those are merely reports by HR company, not fully independent scientific studies. They prove what they set up to prove and were created precisely for the purpose that you used them - to provide 'pseudo-scientific' cover for DEI practices, to work as a smoke screen. There is even step-two solution for skeptics - with press and academia being mostly left-leaning it is very easy to call the people who read and actually understand the reports 'alt right bigots who oppose science'. Can you imagine McKinsey publishing reports if the results actually proved the opposite? Read this - https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fqz.com%2Fwork%2F2038103%2Fis...

Because he isn't doing anything different from others. There are many companies with deep russian connections. His competition even bought whole engines from them. He is just loud and obnoxious, and not liked by many. But in reality it is SpaceX that ended dangerous dependence on Soyuz. In reality Ukraine received Starlink terminals that helped them.

It is just a mediocre show, but people ranking it 1/10 would have given it a solid 5/10 if it was called "Guy-lradiel: The Warrior Princess". Amazon changed most of the established lore and wonders why the Tolkien's fans are angry. Sure it must be because they are all racist.

Do you actually believe what you write? Are you a paid troll? Who cares about Starship this and that? The point is that there is an existing rocket ready and waiting that is $20 billion cheaper in development, 10 times cheaper per launch and only slightly less capable than extremely expensive but yet to be proven SLS. Future versions of SLS are 10 years in the future and will cost another few billion - and their capability may be mimicked by just launching separete Heavy with another propulsion stage, at fraction of the cost. Old Saturn V had to be a heavy lift vehicle because stacking manned ships in orbit was dangerous half a century ago. Now you can just launch few cheaper rockets and stack capsule, lander and propulsion module. Resulting vechicle will be more capable, larger and cheaper at the same time.

And Heavy was enough "direct competition" to SLS that NASA Administrator did what he could to kill the idea of using it - https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Farstechnica.com%2Fscienc... SLS is so dishonest design that it couldn't make it without foul play from Congress and lobbyists. There was never a real need for a rocket of this exact capacity, Congress just mandated it that way. As for the last argument - with Starship SpaceX is trying to lower the costs per kg even further by enlarging the rocket - but SLS is all about milking the federal budget, the exact opposite.

Five years ago your line of reasoning would be more or less feasible. Now you're grasping straws or trolling. Starship is not a direct competition to SLS, Falcon Heavy is. Elon may be an egoistic asshole, but SpaceX's Falcon Heavy has 70% lift of SLS, is ready, is reliable, costs $20,000,000,000 less to develop - and its single launch is more than 10 times cheaper than SLS's. In developing costs of SLS alone NASA has sunk more than 100 launches of Heavy - they could fly 100 times with 70% of cargo, then fly 10 times for the cost of one SLS rocket. They didn't use Heavy only because politicians in Congress forced them not to. Developing Starship is a separate issue - probably more about the future and it will surely take a few years longer than Elon boasted. It will be more expensive than he said, that's for sure. I can't imagine it being more expensive than SLS, though. An mind this - it is a private company that is investing private money, they fail or succeed, who cares. Twenty billion for developing SLS was stolen from your taxes.

Small businesses will have to buy an electric truck. Used gasoline cars would be hard to get or may be banned alltogether. There is no sign that electric trucks would be cheap, as the most expensive element (battery) is many times larger than in a family car. Landcsapers will buy them nonetheless - and increase the prices of their services accordingly.

An empty gesture, possible only because they have a lot of money. And they are rich because they export oil and gas. So much for saving the planet.

Stop being silly. There is no guarantee that electric cars would be cheaper, those are just empty promises. And power grid in California sucks while being expensive. Owning an electric car while not having a garage with PV panels would be a disaster - those cars are currently targetted to people who can slowly charge them at home. Imagine charging all cars along the streets of a big city, tens of tousands at a time. For sure this legislation would cripple small businesses and poorer people, making used cars more expensive - and old electric cars have minuscule range and are unsuitable for many business activities. That would create more poverty and force people to depend on public transport - in a state (and country) that was designed for the last 100 years to be automobile-friendly. All in the name of minuscule reduction of emissions. If you want to reduce emissions make a deal with China (coal mines) and India or start building nuclear-powered container ships, those are the true culprits.

The whole russian millitary is one big joke. And their media lie everyday so there is no point in listening to the lie-of-the day. At this point the version I saw on TV is that cruiser experienced a "small fire that they still investigate" but it didn't reach the ammunition. Then it sunk because of the storm but they saved the whole crew . Despite this being obviously a pure accident they somehow blame Ukraine for the whole act. You couldn't find any official version because this was propaganda for "internal" use - it was peddled by TV hosts and their quests. There is no way for them to put something offical with straight face - it just sunk, either by extreme incompetence or Ukrainian attack. Or maybe they will put something funny later - Kursk is still "officialy" destroyed by US Navy torpedo and/or ramming by NATO submarine.

Russians are so strong. After mere 7 years of extensive preparations this military superpower managed to conquer whole Kyiv in 3 days, a city 150 km from the border. Nobody could stop them. They all went in one line and puff - all conquered. Definitely not incompetent. According to official russian sources a cruiser was sunk recently - because two sailors were smoking behind rocket fuel. So not incompetent, so much debunked.

You underestimate those guys again - actually it is $1000 to build and $119,000 in Putin's pocket: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

Link to the explanation of those two critical flaws, they say the price is $80,000 to $120,000: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

Yes, it matters what it's made from, a lot. There are two major flaws here. One, there are almost no russian-made components - except for fuel tank and composite airframe (easiest to manufacture, my school workshop could make it cheaply). This matters a lot because all of the countries that unknowingly made this franken-drone stopped trading with Russia and will make sure to check those components and their manufacturers. Engine and a lot of electronics are Japanese, so they will stop those orders of lawnmower engines. Second flaw is that while it costs $3,000 to make Russian Army actually pays $80,000-100,000. The rest is pocketed and spend on yachts, vodka and hoes. The use of Canon camera itself is in my opinion brilliant and in the spirit of SpaceX entrepreneurship.

Not only it is an empty threat - it is actually a psychological projection. It is Russia who will be hurt by the end of ISS so they perform the usual maskirovka - threatened the US to do the only thing that they wouldn't. Why? Because space efforts are a great propagadna tool for Russia, they are proud of their manned space programme. But Soyuz is old and the money for its successors were all stolen and pocketed. There is no chance for a meaningful continuation and even the market for cheap satelite flights is shrining for them - because of a wave of new space companies in the USA. If Russians were to pull from ISS - where the Soyuz would fly to? They can try to recreate Mir space station - but it would be long and prohibitively expensive in the current economic situation. My prediction is Russians would continue making a fuss about leaving - but only after being 100% sure that NASA wants them to stay. The prudent move in that situation would be to help them do what they say they want - ditch them alltogether and just disconnect Russian modules. That would both serve as an impulse for a new, commercial space station and collapse Russian space industry. Even if the final result would be deorbiting the ISS - so be it. ISS existence is more symbolic than actual necessity. It is already old and ready for scrapping. And in a few years it can be recreated wit a new hardware.

The usual answer given by professionals is that every army needs a vehicle that combines speed, direct firepower and heavy armour. At some point you have to advance or flank and foot soldiers with Javelins are too slow for that. Furthermore, if a tank can be destroyed by missiles and artillery - then infantry is even more vulnerable, as it can't even run away fast enough. Since 1940 doctrine insists on using massed tanks with good scouting, infantry protection, artillery and air superiority. It is not a standalone war machine but a centerpiece of mechanical warfare. If anything is getting obsolete it is Stryker and BMP-type light IFVs, a juicy target but not enough protected.