First, don't invke a "both sides" fallacy. It's stupid.
Second, is there any evidence anywhere that the US engages in any of these? Because it's already known that Russia does both, and in fact uses chemical weapons such as vx/novochik
Third, president Nixon issued an executive order mandating that no government entities engage in this in any way at all, and unlike your tsar's decrees, executive orders have no effect if they're not made pubic, so they can't be secretly cancelled, amended, or ignored. We have a system of checks and balances, you do not.

So first it was opt in, but because nobody really wanted or asked for it, it became opt out. Still, nobody wanted it, so now they don't even get a choice. And ifans wonder why I don't like apple.

Probably worth mentioning at this time that Russia never stopped its bioweapons (and chemical weapons) research and development, which includes inducing antibiotics resistance into deadly microbes.

If this is what that is, you already know you can count on incompetent Russia to hit itself with its own weapon.

Teslas, BMW's, Rivian, and Mercedes have cameras all around the vehicle that are always on, and if a security incident is detected they will save the video from a few minutes before the incident to right after the incident.

A quick search shows that Tesla theft (by example) is 90% to 99% lower than the national average, and I assume the other types are similar.

People do not steal cars because of *flock* cameras, they are always on, and the data is available to law enforcement with no oversight.

Personal vehicles save video locally, and it's only used when an actual crime is committed.

I'm in favor of public surveillance that's kept local to whichever user, in the manner of a ring doorbell video (if that were kept local, which it is not). It prevents crime without violating rights - the burglar shouldn't have been on the property to begin with.

This leads to an interesting thought. Flock is a company that keeps videos across the country and tracks vehicles, and soon to include facial recognition. Flock cameras would be entirely acceptable if the video were "owned" by someone local to the actual camera, so that police would have to query the owner to get a video.

I'm not sure who the "owner" would be in this case, but hypothetically if the camera were on the telephone pole outside of a house, if we consider the video owned by the property owner then the possibility of a rights violation would go down precipitously.

Just a thought, and an under-developed one.

We need new ideas to help solve new problems, here is one to chew on.

First of all, what do you mean by "a cure"? There are so many different ways that cancer varies that chasing after one cure to rule them all is just stupid. This is why the clinical definition of cancer is so narrow: A category of diseases involving cells that ignore normal signals and mechanisms to stop dividing or undergo apoptosis and can invade nearby tissue. Plenty of healthy tissues in your body do one of these but not another. So...how do you target them for a "cure"? The answer is and always will be: It depends.

Second of all, there's already a lot of money being put into cancer research. A great, great deal of it in fact.

Third of all, we already have cures for some forms of cancer. I myself had my cancer cured: I had basal cell carcinoma on the top of my ear lobe. Guess what the cure was? Pretty fucking easy: Pick up a scalpel, use the scalpel to excise the differentiated basal cells. Healthy basal cells will eventually take their place. There, cured.

That's probably because it's stupid.

This is exactly what I'm talking about with my original comment: You so badly overestimate your own expertise on this topic that you literally claimed to know that this is "not thermodynamically possible with known science". The problem is, nobody with actual expertise on this topic, including the ones who are saying this won't work, aren't making this argument. The actual experts on this topic aren't making arguments based on physics, full stop, mainly because from a purely scientific and engineering perspective, the concept itself has already been proven. The concept is only not proven when you take cost into consideration. But you're not making an argument based on cost, you're trying to make an argument based on science, and you lost that argument before you even started. And worse, you still don't even know why you lost that argument.

It's certainly doable, the question is and always has been a matter of cost. As somebody has already mentioned, there are currently several players investing millions into R&D on this. They wouldn't even be going that far if they had already concluded that this was impossible.

No matter who does it though, (Google, SpaceX, some smaller players) they're ultimately counting on Starship delivering what it promises. So far, Starship is doing that, just not on the original predicted time horizon.

This is already a solved problem. Old space just makes very large components (which are impractical from a cost perspective, but don't tell the ESA that, because they're the last holdout still relying on it.) New space relies on shielding, redundancy and error correction. Either way, this isn't an issue.

If it's that simple, then it should be pretty easy to show mathematic proof.

But don't bother, because you've already lost the argument: As with all things SpaceX that people claim are impossible until SpaceX actually pulls it off (and has over a dozen times now) they're talking about whether it's cost effective, not whether the physics works. No competent person is arguing that it can't physically work. SpaceX has done this so many times with so many things that you'd figure people would learn by now to make arguments based on cost effectiveness. Yet here you are, no mention of cost effectiveness anywhere.

And like most people who invoke it, you're misusing that term. Dunning-Kruger is meant for people who are actually experts in the field but overestimate their own competence in it. A perfect example of Dunning-Kruger is this guy:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fx.com%2FTazerface16

And here's why: He's an expert in aerospace engineering because that's what he studied and he's actually worked in. Yet he's fucking up on it big time by claiming that Starship will never make it to orbit, and his reasoning for that is sheer incompetence: His claim is (or at least was) that it's "too heavy" with no other qualifiers. Nothing about velocity, nothing about thrust, just "too heavy". Stupid. Particularly given it just recently went orbital. It was always a dumb argument, displaying incompetence, long before Starship made its first orbital flight. Sure hindsight is 20/20, but guess what? The argument never had sound footing to begin with, for exactly the reason I specified.

FUD about what, exactly? What is it you believe I'm trying to create fear, uncertainty and doubt over? I've always been a "wait and see" kind of guy. I don't make broad, sweeping comments on this or any other topic that I'm not an expert at. This topic in particular, I've made conjectures, but never any predictions. Can this be done? Maybe. My limited knowledge on the topic says a few things:
- We already know they can do meaningful work in orbit -- this concept itself has already been proven.
- Heat needs to be dissipated at least as fast as it is being produced.

But overall, will this work? My hunch is probably, but there are a few important qualifiers:

- How powerful and energy efficient are these TPUs we're putting in orbit?
- How efficient can we make these radiators? Google had to put a small scale bird into orbit, but the bigger they are, the more efficiently they can dissipate heat
- Can the compute yield over the lifetime of the hardware exceed what it costs to put it into orbit?
- Will it be cost effective?

And this is only a small slice of the variables we're looking at.

But you know what? I don't see any of you adding any of these qualifiers. Instead you guys just make broad, sweeping, absolutist statements as if you already have all of the knowledge necessary and you've done all of the math, when you obviously haven't. Take this comment:

If you actually believe that, then it should be easy to provide mathematical proof. So just do it already instead of running your mouth about shit that, at the end of the day, you really don't understand.

I never thought of the AI box experiment as an entirely theoretical thought exercise, but since we seem to have put LLMs on the internet as soon as we were the least bit capable, there never was a meaningful "box" in the first place.

Like this? https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fourworldindata.org%2Fgra...

Well that's one order of magnitude down, depending on where you place the goalpost. Starship only needs to halve the per kg cost of Falcon Heavy to add another one, again, depending on where you put the goalpost. If the goalpost started with the space shuttle, for example, then without question, it's doable.

You sound just like this guy:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fx.com%2FTazerface16

TL;DR claims to be an aerospace engineer and, for years, even as recently as April this year, was very loudly saying starship could never make it to orbit because it is "too heavy". How did that turn out? Basically, he just moved the goalpost. I'm sure that by this time next year, he'll move it again. Though common sense should tell anybody who isn't a total moron that "too heavy" doesn't mean anything at all if you're also using the thrust vector or some other proxy or analog for velocity as a qualifier. Not a god damn thing.

Claims like this should be easy to prove with nothing more than mathematics. So here's an idea: Show your math before running your mouth.

You know what the best thing about this topic is? Everybody who comments on it thinks they're an expert.

A couple of things about the issue.

Firstly, it's usually explained using insult and hyperbole. That's not a way to get others on your side. There's an old saying "it's not enough to be correct, you also have to be effective". It's usually used on... wait for it... nerds, who are typically very smart but cannot communicate well, and who fall back on insults when they cannot communicate well.

Secondly, for some reason no one wants to debate the issue. The mantra is "the science is settled", which isn't really how science works, but there are STILL gaping logical holes in the entire edifice that no one wants to clear up. Such as: other than rising global temperatures, the theory hasn't made testable predictions of any consequence that have actually come true. For example, in 2005 after Katrina, someone noted that "due to climate change, hurricanes will become stronger and more frequent", and then we had about a decade of no major hurricanes.

Thirdly, and this is the one that really bothers me: even if the science is settled, even if the conclusions are correct, climate change does not indicate what should be done. I've reviewed probably two or three dozen experiments aiming to mitigate the effects over the years, they ALL had the best of intentions, and they've ALL failed, sometimes spectacularly, and always adding more CO2 to the atmosphere than if we had done nothing.

In the meantime, since 2000 when Al Gore brought the issue into the public eye, I've seen the rise of solar panel farms, windmills are everywhere in the midwest, and we've gone from about 2% renewable (year 2000, mostly hydropower, and discounting wood) to about 30% today (also discounting wood). New technology is taken up at an exponential rate, so expect those numbers to rise faster in the near future.

Several technologies have been developed that we're right on the edge of deploying (carbon capture by electrolysis, fusion energy generation, robotic labor (various companies)) or in the middle of deploying (EVs, various companies) that should help enormously.

And finally, the issue has become political. The premier maker of EVs, the one who made EVs that people want to buy, is vilified by the political side that wants you to believe in climate change. A sect of that side wants to replace capitalism with communism, even though the resource utilization of that model is one third to one half of what we have today, and would slow down the innovation and advancement that might help us solve the issue.

But if you're not on board, you're a science denier.

It took 40 years to convince everyone that smoking was bad for us, now we have to endure the people who think they're right and have to insult us because we don't believe them.

Stop badgering us about it, it's not about science it's about economics, and it won't be a problem in a decade or two.

(Note for the observant: This post is rife with observable trends and verifiable facts, so expect the other side to downvote it into oblivion, because that's the way to convince people.)