Comment Re:Crowbar! (Score 0) 21
Comment Re:You need this for an emergency (Score 1) 113
It [AM radio] needs to be forced as standard equipment.
Why? What good is it for me? I don't speak Spanish.
Comment Re: Why not Rust? (Score 0) 102
Comment Re:Those aren't threats from AI (Score 0) 40
You are assuming humans are rational agents, and in addition act in-good-faith. You make the classic "Platonic" error, that virtue = knowledge. You imply < know the proper use of AI & all's well >. A sadly false assumption . More robust and lower-risk is to make the Calvinist error : that all humans are fundamentally irrational & corrupt ( in dealings with other people ). Then "physical" kill-switches make sense : kill-switches on AI
Comment corrupt (Score 0) 9
Comment Starship booster? (Score 2) 49
This doesn't make sense on the surface for a number of reasons. The Starship second phase cannot launch most of the things that Falcon 9 launches. I'm assuming they are going to have two large shuttle-like doors on a Starship eventually that can release larger payloads?
The next thing that doesn't make sense is simply payload size. Certainly it is not more economical to use the Starship stack to put something into orbit that is only a small fraction of its cargo capacity? And yes, I know it could carry multiple satellites / spacecraft at once, but it is very rare those things all need to be in the exact same orbit at the same time. So it seems Falcon 9 would be more economical for launching a single smaller thing?
Maybe the economics of the Falcon 9 second stage not being usable totally makes the case for Starship? It's estimated a second stage costs between $7 and $10 million. So perhaps right there economically it makes more sense to fly a 100% reusable Starship even for a small payload. I guess the liquid methane Starship burns is a relatively cheap, being derived from natural gas that the USA already has in abundant supply.