If your comment might contain flamebait, please edit it until it clearly doesn't.
Edit: I meant contact with ISRO..
Good view here: https://twitter.com/cgbassa/status/1170069055140765700?s=21
Given it's a polar landing I don't know how to translate this to the velocity vector of the lander.
DSS 54 carrier lock on Chandrayaan-2 Lander
Signal strength: -143dBm
IDLE OFF 1 TURBO
In some occasions when an event is being broadcast live, a 10-30-60 seconds delay is added to the signal "just in case".
Is there any chance that the Probe crashed on the moon and India's gov/space agency cut the feed while YouTube, live TV, etc. was on this +60 seconds?
I remember when the 3 of SpaceX rockets were doing the concurrent landing (2 at land, 1 at sea), the sea platform link had "a problem" and went down. Then miraculously once the situation was assessed another video surfaced from a nearby camera some time later and we saw that the rocket tilted and fell at sea.
With that said I hope all (peace driven) space exploration efforts go well and we end up with a Star Trek TNG society in 300-400 years.
Harking on humanitarian issues of other countries is awkward for, assuming you are from the US, a country where life expectancy is falling, real income is falling, millions are without health insurance and freedom of press is declining. There is a plethora of other issues touching human dignity and humanitarian topics in the US and yet no one tells them to fix them first before doing X.
Sorry to be blunt, but your comment is ignorant and arrogant.
So you end up with more money to feed starving people from! (...not that you'd do that with the $, but anyway).
Like it or not we engineers like to work on interesting problems and don't really give much thought to social issues, so if you want the super smart engineers to meaningfully contribute to a society and economy instead of emigrating or refactoring themselves into oligarchs you need to give them interesting science and technology problems to work on.
Once you have a richer economy, the problem you wanted to solve in the first place gets waaaay easier!
Nonetheless, this is rocket science and failures are very common and not unexpected. Too bad, but it happens.
Apart from that, I’d presume theres also complexity of the landing site not being directly visible from earth, necessitating re-transmissions from the orbiter.
Not something that hasn’t been done before by any chance, but still harder than say USSR’s lunokhod missions.
Though this is mostly coming from my Kerbal Space Program experience.
(But then of course the moon is neither too far nor too big so I might just be barking at the wrong tree here)
It ended up in a very eccentric polar orbit with its axis pointing at Earth, swinging way out to the left as viewed from Earth. It spent the next week circularizing, after which it was in a nearly circular polar orbit but, because the moon is swinging around, the axis pointed along the moon's orbital path, such that only half of its orbit was in view of (and in radio contact) with Earth. A few days after that it (or, rather, the moon) had swung around enough to put the orbiter in line of sight to Earth for most of its orbit very close to the moon.
Don't know how reliable this source is:
From the ISRO Chief himself: https://twitter.com/KailasavadivooS/status/11706129755828879...
It's a fake account :)
The science we expel is a reflection of the cultures that created it. In space, everyone has had failures. And I hope this failure offers reflection and improvement and that they can grow from it.
But even still, this is otherwise part of a narrative change for the people of india, and something "so simple" can have a huge impact on future generations and what people tell themselves on an individual level.
I personally am sad that this mission has failed. Exploring the permanently shadowed craters of the moon is necessary to find whatever sliver of ice remains on it. The satellite industry is growing but there is still no economic case for going to the moon and this mission could have changed that.
Best scientist can be in any nation and more diverse the group and experience the better chances of success.
I know I am just dreaming, but hopefully we can come to consensus and try challenges of space as a new frontier as a single human race, originating from Africa.
A “single human race” would be a deeply dysfunctional, unworkable mega-society. Our societies are already too big to be governable. (Ever notice how in Star Trek, aside from token, curated, differences, trillions of people are somehow almost completely culturally homogenous? That’s what makes the federation governable. But it would never work that way in real life. There would be intense conflict. The idea of a society that big being governable is part of the science fiction.)
Moreover, if mankind ever expands into space, it would be rather naive to think that earth's nations would play a role there in the long run. Earth's nations change all the time, they are mere human constructs, and of course the same would happen in outer space. It would take maybe a hundred years or so for space colonies to declare their independence. And afterwards, they form larger unions again, just like on earth, because forming unions is in their interests.
> The idea of a society that big being governable is part of the science fiction.
That's far off topic, but to reply to this aspect of your post: Claiming that you can govern countries like Australia, the US, and Russia, but not the world as a whole draws some pretty arbitrary boundaries. With a federal structure, it would be no problem.
People said about every country before it was united that it will never be united. Before Germany was united, people said that it's absolutely impossible to govern such a big country and that the cultures of Prussia and Bavaria are just too different. Before the EU was funded, people said that certain European countries could never closely work together or even form a trade union and that there would always be war between some of them. Heck, probably settlers in the US also were convinced that the South and the North could never live together or be governed as one nation, because it's just too big. And so on, and so forth, you get the gist.
As to your second point—no government today is as large in scope as say Rome, the British Empire, the Persian empire, etc. The long-term sustainability of the EU and US are also far from certain. As we saw with both, federalism doesn’t work. As soon as you have a single voting polity, people will want to escalate everything to the federal level. It’s unacceptable to many in the US, for example, that Iowa might have a different minimum wage than New York. When climate change really hits, and California is fighting with Colorado over water and contemplating invading the PNW, we shall see.
Utter hogwash. In terms of scale and intensiveness if state powers even small nations can easily outstrip the bureaucratic complexity of any ancient empire. The challenges of maintaining a welfare state is no small thing.
And plenty of countries manage incredible amounts of diversity. India has 50 official languages on its own, and that’s ignoring dialects and weird subgroups. If things seem more similar in spite of that it’s because nation-sized economies are inherently homogenizing through creation of national languages and bureaucracies. But this is itself part of the complexity. Modern governments literally aim to educate ALL the children born within them. This would have been insane to a Roman.
Indo-Aryan is spoken by ~74% of India, with Dravidian spoken by ~24% of India. So in practice the real-life language diversity is very small.
As for 'managing diversity', India has historically 'solved' this through a caste system, not a solution I would propose.
Source: I'm trained as a general linguist, but are not specialized in ethno- and sociolinguistics. Check out https://www.ethnologue.com for more information.
True, but old-school linguists tend to revel in this diversity, whereas more modern linguists try to find commonalities between these very diverse languages.
I remember auditing a linguistics class in college largely because I was interested in NLP. Sadly, I got the old-school professors who were more interested in students memorizing hundreds of variants of sounds than understanding the links between them. I dropped the course. Maybe if I stuck around long enough they would get to more global insights, but I was turned off by their entire approach.
That is clearly not adequate if you want to take a look at languages and culture (in that language). Classifications of languages as languages are partly political, sometimes even highly political, and mutual comprehensibility is not a working criterion.
I don't recall the details, but the classification used by ethnologue.com are a fairly reasonable set of soft criteria. The alternative would be not to speak of languages and dialects at all, and instead only about varieties of various language families with a certain degree of mutual comprehensibility to other varieties, but that would be even more counter-intuitive to laymen.
As to your personal experience: That's sad, you merely seem to have ended up in the wrong department / with the wrong professors. Find some general linguists and computational linguists and you should get your global insights. Phonology was actually at the forefront of general structural descriptions, sometimes even earlier than in syntax. For example, they invented optimality theory. It's worth giving it another try!
It was a while ago (graduated in 2005), but I think linguistics was under the English or anthropology department (I do remember the building was in the liberal sciences area). While I saw a clear connection between linguistics and NLP, I got the sense that the focus was to understand culture through language, and less about understanding language and communication itself.
> It's worth giving it another try!
I'd like to, but in the ~15 years since I've graduated it feels like the entire computational linguistics field has grown so dramatically that many of the problems I was originally interested in have been more-or-less developed (e.g., segmenting words into their phonemes for machine learning models, building grammar trees). Today, I'm more likely to grab one of the many libraries that do all this magic under the hood while I remain ignorant.
Is this like saying Italian, French, Spanish are pretty much the same because they are Romamtic languages? Or English and German are interchangable, because English is a Germanic language?
Or, is much closer like British and American English- just mostly difference because of accents and dialects?
Trying to understand how different Indian subgroups of languages are.
It really varies. Some languages, like Hindi, Gujarati, and Punjabi, are about as similar as Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. In other cases the common languages can be very different. Telugu and Tamil, for instance, are probably much more like trying to go between English and German. Telugu and Kannada are kind of odd ducks. They're basically Dravidian languages that borrowed tons of their vocabulary from an Indo-European language (Sanskrit). That actually makes it a very good analogue for English, which is a Germanic language that spent a lot of time trying desperately to be a Romance language (French).
It's a bit of a tricky business, because what counts as a language is often also determined by political decisions. Mutual comprehensibility is not a reliable criterion. However, modern linguistics uses pretty good sets of "soft" criteria for the classifications.
To think that in one hundred years any outer space colony will be self sufficient compared to whatever is produced and available on Earth is highly unlikely even in our wildest dreams now. We have literally no pathway for complete self sustainability on other planets in sight, and as long as this remains true space colonies will have no power to break out from whoever they depend on.
Assuming some sort of breakthrough in cheap propulsion and living systems, I couldn't disagree more. If anything, you'd see efforts at a sub-state level with the early colonies in the Americas given as examples.
I think that states, and particularly nations, are well suited to large scale efforts with minimal or no immediate payoffs. It's hard to get a sufficiently large group to pull on a rope at the same time.
In fact, you don't even have to look beyond India to see a country which is doing pretty well for itself (all things considered) despite each state being a quasi nation with distinct cultural and language mores.
India is a wonderful country, but that diversity causes a lot of problems.
I mentioned the Kaveri River water supply issues in a different comment, but there's also all of the issues in the Indian controlled portion of Kashmir... and just everything surrounding the whole of Kashmir
The issue in Assam that the person you are replying to is mentioning is also important. It's quite similar to some of the issues we're facing in America, and it shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.
For those unfamiliar, one of the states in India has a significant refugee population, largely from refugees fleeing Indo-Pakistani and Bangaldesh Liberation Wars of 1971. Millions fled, particularly from Bangladesh and the rest of east Pakistan, to India. India, since 1987, lacks jus soli/birthright citizenship. Many of the refugees did not bring with them any way to prove citizenship in other countries. Many of the refugees forged identities to be allowed to stay. While this obviously is technically illegal, the end result is that there are people that have been living in India for 50 years, or were born there and know nothing else, that are having their citizenships revoked. Without the ability to prove citizenship from their other countries, these refugees and their descendants are at risk of ending up totally stateless - there are millions of people at risk from this. Bangladesh has not committed to accepting these people, and neither has India said they will allow them to stay and give them a path to citizenship.
It's hardly related to "big" problems like this, either. Casual statism and racism is a significant issue, both along the north/south divide, but also within regions.
Seems like a naive assumption. We don't see Virgin Islands and other US territories trying to sever their ties to the mainland. In fact we see the opposite with Puerto Rico.
What sort of groups, precisely?
Historically, the concept of a "nation" (as the "nat-" root implies) is a people born of the same ancestry, a people native to the same land. Parthians, Medes and Elamites, and so forth - sharing an ethnicity, a language, and a culture.
Yet the first two "nations" to reach space, the US and the USSR, were hardly that. Sure, each had a majority ethnic group, but they both had (in their own way) an expectation that all people within their borders would conform to their culture, and relevantly that their approach to scientific research and space exploration would benefit the country as a whole.
And India isn't a "nation" in the historical sense, anyway. It's a collection of dozens of peoples, with significant and influential minority populations among them, and all are represented in the country as a whole and in ISRO in particular. Getting India into space on its own absolutely serves the needs of India as a sovereign power, but that's very different from saying that it serves the needs of humanity (or that India, or anyone else, should be a sovereign power).
And, relevant to the concept of "nation," there's no particular reason a person born into a high-information world should adopt the values of their ethnicity's historic culture more than any other values they may see.
Again, I disagree with this. Plenty of programmers in San Francisco grew up on farms in Iowa. (And to be transparent about my biases here: my parents are Indian Christians, a distinct culture from the Hindu majority; my dad worked for ISRO; and I was born in the Deep South and worked as a programmer in SF for a few years. So the culture of "India" as a whole doesn't resonate with me, nor that of "the Deep South" or "SF" nor "America," and I don't feel like a lesser person for it.)
And I would claim that the fact that you can migrate from an area with one sort of politics / culture / economy / etc. to an area with another one (as a pointed example, anyone remember the "It Gets Better" videos from a few years ago featuring gay people who grew up across the country, half of whom seemed to say "and then I moved to San Francisco"?), and that people do that quite frequently, is evidence that there isn't much reason in attributing politics / culture / etc. to people as people in the way we've historically seen it, i.e., as correlated with place of birth or parentage or childhood culture, or proxies for those like religion.
If anything, the unrealistic part about Star Trek is that the various alien species had personalities influenced by their biology (the Vulcans with weaker emotional processing, the physically resilient Klingons, etc.). If they didn't, given pervasive interstellar transport, it's hard to see why so many people stay on their home planets. (And indeed the whole conceit of the Federation is that they don't have to.)
> hey you can find McDonalds and Starbucks even when you don't expect it, so it means the world is closer than it has ever been right?
You could find pottery exported in multiple places even in antiquity, that did not mean they had a single culture or single belief system in place. Do not equal exchange of goods with the assumption of a mono-culture.
I also never understood why people seem to think that a multinational corporation selling stuff to different cultures is somehow doing anything but increasing the corporation's profit margins.
Ocha rhymes with chai.
(1) there are more sovereign nations now than ever,
(2) all the big empires (from Babylonian, to Alexander's, to Roman, to Byzantium, to Persian, to Incas, all the way to the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, British and French colonial empires, USSR, and more) -aside from the Chinese and Indian who are more homogenous racially/culturally - have collapsed
(3) there is way more infighting that on any time in the previous 40 years
(4) nations that were held together for half a century as a single country have nonetheless split at the first chance, often under fierce wars (e.g. Yugoslavia), and even centuries old countries like Canada, Belgium, UK, Spain, etc, still have infighting, and even votes to break up...
(5) a worsening of climate change and economy will more than likely see every-nation-for-itself than some unity, even if there's a coordinated effort to reduce emissions and so on, there will also be huge pressure to ascertain certain resources, safety, etc at a country by country level (sharing is only good for those that need it. For those that have the power to avoid it, or even grab from others, it just gives you moral points)
>You can find kfc, coca cola in societies as diverse as Mongolia and Madagascar.
Yeah, that's a huge cultural (and dietary) destruction...
Do you know how many different empires, rulers, internal wars and government systems China and India have gone through in 2000 years, and how many "races" and "cultures" they have?
Yes. Still more homogeneous and stable than most other empires...
I also mean like that time when the eventual demise of most empires and huge nations was my point, which China and India managed to avoid, and not China and India themselves (which are totally orthogonal to the point I was making, and in fact an exception to the rule I posited)
I believe you meant ethnicity, not race. Also as for the diversity, the two major ethnicities in India are Indio-Aryan and Dravidian, at 73% and 24% respectively, leaving the rest of the 'massive diversity' spread across 3% of the population. Same holds true for language. So I'd argue that the actual ethnic/language diversity in India is rather small in practice.
As for India, look up Pakistan.
Meanwhile, I've mentioned Pakistan already in another answer many hours ago...
China and India are not very homogenous at all, now or historically. I can bring up plenty of examples, but here's one that caused huge amounts of political unrest and dispute just last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaveri_River_water_dispute
>Yeah, that's a huge cultural (and dietary) destruction...
Culture only has value if people decide it have value. There is nothing innate in the concept of culture that makes it valuable or positive. Certain aspects of existing cultures I think most people on HN would agree are detrimental to humanity - things that result in harm, control, removal of agency, etc. from the unwilling. Those shouldn't be protected just because they're part of culture. And by the same token, if a more homogenous culture is required for humanity's descendants to become a spacefaring civilization (which is ultimately required for something resembling humans to survive in the long run), people might value that over cultural diversity. I'm not really convinced that that is required, as diversity generally makes us better, but there might be aspects that are incompatible.
But even focusing on something like food - there's nothing inherently wrong with people deciding they prefer to eat some type of food more than what may have historically arisen in their culture or geographic location. I love trying different types of food and hope that it is preserved in some way, but no ones owes it to me, or anyone else, to eat something they don't want to in the name of preserving culture. Every individual has agency, and we should let the people that want to preserve aspects of their culture do so, and those that want to shed aspects should certainly be allowed to do so as well. At any rate, I doubt the people eating KFC and drinking Coke in Mongolia and Madagascar need or appreciate those of us on Hackernews telling them they should or shouldn't eat and drink.
1. Not all of these are centuries old.
2. The fact that they generally agree on a legal system to bring about the changes each side wants by voting on these separatist policies within the scope of that agreed system is impressive in and of itself. They simply want some decisions about their government to be made by different people in a different place which is quite compatible with some hypothetical global federalist system.
Yeah, but the power of the nation state has also weakened. Try subtracting many of the EU member nations as individual sovereign countries for instance, or look to the outsized influence of multinationals.
2. The West is essentially one large empire.
> (3) there is way more infighting that on any time in the previous 40 years
Source? 40 years is a bad timescale - bring that up to a few hundred or thousand and we are at an almost all-time low.
Still, India as of today remains huge (1.4 billion people) and mostly homogenous and more long lived than most other nations, the claim wasn't that it was a monolithic thing that never had any splits/ethnic issues...
The comparison I explicitly made was to e.g. the Babylonian empire (now totally gone), the Roman empire (now totally gone), the British colonial empire (now almost totally gone), Austro-Hungarian empire (now gone), and so on...
India is ethnically, culturally, geographically, religiously, linguistically one of the most diverse countries in the world.
One of the main reason space launches like this are in English and English is one of official language is because not everyone has a common background
They all even use the same currency too!
Humanity is scientifically and materialistically closer and that will certainly continue, but the world is not closer in terms of modes of governance or ideas of how society ought to be organised.
On the contrary, 30 years ago after the fall of the Soviet Union that sentiment peaked and Fukuyama's end of history seemed plausible. Today with the nationalisation of cyberspace, we can see countless of new divides.
The US is rapidly withdrawing from global affairs, China is emerging with a competitive, alternative mode of organisation, a distinct European identity is beginning to form as a response to this particular in France, India is slowly emerging (see the very thread we're in), and Africa is a whole other matter.
But by no means does it look like the world is converging, as it did in the 90s and early 00s when we were all listening to corporate world music and cheering for Blair.
You're thinking in short, next twenty years or so. A resurgence of nationalism is a response to globalization, but unless we give up our ways of living entirely (no capitalism, no markets, no growth) these movements will have practically no effect. Mass media alone ensure that, let alone the nature of global trading and social mobility. Think about the next two hundred years and there is no way culture on earth will not be vastly homogeneous. Whether that's good or bad I will leave open, my personal view is that all massive shifts in human development are accompanied by positive and negative effects.
I suspect the drawdown of easily-accessible, dense, cheap fossil fuels will spell the end of global integration; consider a very low-energy future where most communication takes place via radio and travel for 99% takes place at a fraction of today's rate. We would expect regional differences to increase as groups adapt to local areas, ideally while carrying out extensive sharing of e.g. practices and techniques.
If you assume that the world order should look like America in charge, everyone else playing quietly in their own garden then everything is fine. If you assume that the Asian, African and European powers might see the world differently, there is a lot of potential that the last 60 years are not the inevitable tide of history but a happy anomaly while everyone stood back up from WWII.
And if you’re an American, the prospect of that single national government being say Bangladesh (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/world/asia/bangladesh-sta...) should be pretty scary! Star Trek style global government seems attractive to many people because they assume it’ll be “America in Space.”
Still, I don't think we can face planetary-scale challenges much longer as a bunch of competing nations; some form of global governance will be necessary for humanity to move forward.
As for culture difference, this may be unpopular opinion, but I do hope things will homogenize further over time. The driving aspect towards cultural unification even today is that people copy what works.
Yeah a "Great Leap Forward" kind of moving forward for humanity? Sounds good, works bad. Capitalism looks bad, but works good. I once also wanted a kind of world government but as I grew more knowledgable this Idea really started to terrify me. A decentralized world of competing small units with a small set of (trade) rules seems like the best option mid- to long-term. In short term of course socialist type of governance gives stability.
Just 2 cents from a fellow European
Before we got to see what the internet actually became, it was a realm of endless idealism. It was going to be something that would finally unite people across cultures and any sort of boundaries. People would be able to share ideas, communicate instantly, and effectively turn humanity from a disparate group of people separated by arbitrary lines into simple a group of diverse and interesting people all sharing and communicating among one another. Instead we used its filtering ability to break down into even smaller groups than before. Before the internet Americans were mostly unified by an American identity. Now instead we've splintered off into a whole host of little subculture identities driven by the great ability of the internet to unite niches and expel the nonbelievers.
But this isn't about the internet. It's about people. Birmingham is one of the most "integrated" cities in England. This  page has heat maps showing the various religions there. There's basically no overlap. Instead of integration you have the Muslim section, the Christian section, the Jew section, etc. Even the Sikhs have there own little section, though granted they do share it a bit with the Hindus. Now instead of having one mostly unified city you now have a half dozen cities that have some very sharp cultural conflicts. The irony that literally bringing people closer together can, figuratively, do the exact opposite.
Even the notion that we're becoming more integrated is something I'd question. This  is a video showing the borders of the world over time. The surprising thing you'll notice is that, over time, divisions between society have actually been accelerating. Check out the mid 1200s. The Mongols created a single unified empire than stretched from western europe to eastern asia. Very near the entire known world at the time. No need for borders when there's one world government, and one that was also extremely tolerant of foreign cultures. Can you imagine living in this time and then somebody saying that within a couple of centuries the entire empire would be scattered like ashes in the wind?
And like nearly all the empire collapses you can see in that video, it was caused by internal culture clashes. Should the Mongol empire adopt western traditions and become a sedentary settled empire, or should it remain a putative Mongol empire? One side said x, the other said y, lots of people died, the empire broke up. A story told a million times on various scales. Of course even if they had chosen one direction or another, it likely would have had the same ending because once one side or another reached a critical mass - you'd see the emergence of internal insurrections.
Of course we've had a pause in open war since 1945 but nuclear deterrence isn't going to last forever. Imagine there were no nuclear weapons today. Do you think China, the Mideast, the United States, China, Russia, Europe, etc would still be maintaining the already tenuous peace we have? Without nuclear weapons the Cold War would not have been the Cold War, it would have been World War 3. And as soon as nuclear deterrence can be nullified by technological means, I expect we'll be quite quick to pick right back up.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Birmingham
 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Wu0Q7x5D0
The main problem with this argument and others statements similar to it is that we don't have objective evidence for the state of the world in 1200.
The information from before cheap printing is heavily biased, mostly hearsay from few individual sources that had their own agenda.
The argument you're making is sufficient to discount and any all records of history. And indeed not even history of the long past, but also the present. Do you know exactly what happened in Syria from falsifiable objective accounts, or are you relying on information spread by a small number of sources each with their own agenda?
I think your argument definitely deserves consideration when you get into the minutia of history, but when you're talking about the big scale (this empire ruled this land at this time) I think your argument is more about a disbelief in everything, historical nihilism, rather than justifiable incredulity.
"The Mongols created a single unified empire than stretched from western europe to eastern asia [...] one that was also extremely tolerant of foreign cultures"
Was there a gigantic Mongol empire? Sure. Was it unified and extremely tolerant of foreign cultures in the sense that we use these words today? Not bloody likely. What kind of tolerance leads to what you also note:
"(1 in 200 men, around the world, are direct descendants of Genghis Khan)"
Outside of religion they also even allowed local leaders to remain and organize their subjects as they saw fit (subject to things such as guarantees of religious freedom) including even maintaining their own militaries. The only requirement was a 10% tax to the Mongol empire.
They way he spread his genes was pretty much as the way we do today. The only difference is that he had hundreds of wives. Take somebody with several times the wealth of Jeff Bezos today and make him the absolute ruler of the USA, EU, and China. And now he imagine he asks, genuinely asking - not an offer one cannot refuse, practically any woman on this Earth to be one of his wives. Very few would say 'nah, I'm holding out for somebody better.'
All these difference you talk about came from our tribal nationalistic mentality. Indeed the reason USA and many other countries succeeded is due to openness to embrace diversity.
Single human race does not mean everyone is same, I am not sure if you heard "Unity in diversity". All the boundaries we talk about today hopefully do not extend to space.
There are many countries which are open to diversity - India would probably lead that list historically followed by modern Canada. But none is close to USA. On the other hand, Japan, South Korea, China and Asian tigers have done well without being open and diverse.
A randomly googled source is https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers... , which casually mentions a bunch of relevant numbers.
They all make money by selling to the USA.
The average nucleotide diversity (pi) for the 50 segments is only 0.061% +/- 0.010% among Asians and 0.064% +/- 0.011% among Europeans but almost twice as high (0.115% +/- 0.016%) among Africans. The African diversity estimate is even higher than that between Africans and Eurasians (0.096% +/- 0.012%). From available data for noncoding autosomal regions (total length = 47,038 bp) and X-linked regions (47,421 bp), we estimated the pi-values for autosomal regions to be 0.105, 0.070, 0.069, and 0.097% for Africans, Asians, Europeans, and between Africans and Eurasians, and the corresponding values for X-linked regions to be 0.088, 0.042, 0.053, and 0.082%. Thus, Africans differ from one another slightly more than from Eurasians, and the genetic diversity in "Eurasians is largely a subset of that in Africans, supporting the out of Africa model of human evolution." Clearly, one must specify the geographic origins of the individuals sampled when studying pi or SNP density. 
For that matter, you seem to be conceding the point that there are different groups of people similar to those commonly referred to as "races" that have discernibly different traits - in this case nucleotide diversity.
In other words, I do not think that your paper does not support your assertion that races do not exist. (And also completely failed to address the "these specific traits are significant and associated with particular races" component of my argument)
Should I just presume you to be correct on race unless proven wrong?
It doesn't have to be "race", since that's a really loaded word. "Ancestry" and "heritage" seem to be more popular modern equivalents. But do we really use either of those differently than people 100 years ago would have used "race", or are we just powering down the euphemism treadmill?
I really think the main problem in this comment chain is that we're using different definitions and talking past each other.
India would not be dependent on the US if we used some of our expertise to teach them. It doesn't have to a black box that "just works" without any understanding of it. There's also no reason knowledge sharing couldn't take in the context of market economics. The experts that helped India wouldn't be working for free. It also doesn't have to contradict different interests, values, etc.: Vastly different groups can still have some areas of collective self-interest that coincide. India for example is the world's largest Democracy. That alone is a good reason for the US to want to help make them successful and provide to them scientific help that advances their society and thereby assists in their long term stability.
Unrelated: Your profile, "cognitive radio" sounds fascinating!
There's other examples too: Despite a chilly relationship and very different values, the US and Russia have worked together for two decades on the ISS. The world is littered with current projects or their results that involved significant international cooperation and shared expertise.
The argument that it shouldn't happen, or isn't in countries' best interests, or not with India in this case-- those might be interesting ideas to explore, but that doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen successfully. Practically no country has independently built all of the technology that it both uses, fully understands, and can now produce on its own. What we're really talking about here is teaching-- teaching another country how to do something. I don't need how teaching necessarily disadvantages the student country. It doesn't replace their own initiative to learn and internalize the material, but it does bootstrap the process.
The problem is there is a big crossover between space tech and missile tech, so you have to see that other country as a very close ally to start that kind of tech transfer.
>There's other examples too: Despite a chilly relationship and very different values, the US and Russia have worked together for two decades on the ISS. The world is littered with current projects or their results that involved significant international cooperation and shared expertise.
All tech they both already had.
> Practically no country has independently built all of the technology that it both uses, fully understands, and can now produce on its own.
That isn't an argument for choosing to transfer a particular technology to a particular country.
>What we're really talking about here is teaching-- teaching another country how to do something. I don't need how teaching necessarily disadvantages the student country. It doesn't replace their own initiative to learn and internalize the material, but it does bootstrap the process.
It makes that tech much more easily spread in an age where the west is already worrying about North Korea/Iran/etc's long range missile programs (which they are collaborating on!, point you, but thats a reason why not to share technology willy nilly, point me).
There's actually tons of knowledge transfer, everything but ITAR. For example, NASA publishes a lot of information in the open, as long as it's not ITAR-restricted.
Personally, the most logical conclusion for me is that national governance being the highest level is a local maxima, and I think I'd take a long bet that if humans are around in another 1000 years, there would be a necessary requirement for at least some form of planet-scale government.
Anecdotally I have traveled and met folks abroad as well as interacted with many immigrants domestically, at the end of the day I think it’s safe to say the basic nature of being hunt leads to us all having more in common than not.
Now governments being divisive for short sighted power grabs? Sure, but don’t say it’s the people.
People don't tolerate differences well, even when they think they do. For instance how would you like a representative population of the US in your neighborhood and work? People tend to think about things like this in terms of colors instead of views and values. That'd mean, among other things, that of every person who voted in your work/neighbor, more than 46% would have voted for Trump.
Ultimately I think politicians are reflections of the people rather than their directors. Did Abraham Lincoln end slavery, or had the public mind changed in such a way that the election of a figurative Lincoln was inevitable, even if by a different name? So too in modern times. It's not like America was just cheery before 2016. Ever since the normalization of the internet we've been becoming extremely divided. And so it's only natural that our politicians would in turn end up being ever more divisive.
Think about the migration debate. It's not about things like trying to determine what a sustainable level of migration is, or its longterm economic and social impacts. Instead one side wants to build a wall and block migration as much as possible while the other side is dog whistling for open borders and literally suggesting free medical care and other benefits for people who enter illegally. Both sides are basically just trolling each other, and I think that's a reflection of what we the people are doing to one another. And of course this is not just intra-America. See, for instance, the huge rise of 白左 / baizuo. People view things through difference lenses, even when we do have nearly everything in common.
Maybe that is even actually the real point. The more you have in common, the less of a difference you need to create a meaningful divide. When you disagree on many things, one more disagreement isn't really changing your relationship much. When you agree on nearly everything, one irreconcilable disagreement is suddenly a big deal.
no, that difference is not the reason, that difference is the fabricated reason. The actual reason is the power transfer, and who gets to call the shots and be the "official" true heir.
I anything this example shows that conflict is always created by people and is about power and influence and never about "objective/valid" reasons.
A single human race is what we actually are.
Wake up and set your tribalistic thinking aside, it's not helping anyone.
Just because you can't imagine an alternative to the status quo doesn't mean it's impossible.
MasterCard and Visa have stopped there services in several countries, in-order to be complaint with American law (Laws which are specifically made, to hurt certain countries).
When a Democratic government is controlling private companies, when needed let alone your suggestion of believing in government companies.
In 1999, during Kargil War (between India and Pakistan), it's an unexpected war from Indian side. When Indian government asked help from American government for GPS, they have outright denied it. When it's needed the most.
As a country we had our fair-share of setbacks from several countries, I think we need to learn from our mistakes and try to be independent.
In the need of the hour, every country/state/person has it's own preferences.
Eitherway, there's also some advantages from having competing organizations with different operating philosophies exploring space.
There are also international efforts and private ones.
I like having multiple tools in the toolbox. They all seem to operate quite differently. ESA/NASA can do long horizon boundary projects and hard science. ISS can do hard science, and expand/internationalize the knowledge base. These small, one-off national projects can try out new (often low cost) designs and a "just because" rationales for missions. Private space is making great progress commodifying launches... Roscosmos has more room to play (currently, they sell seats on their vehicles), without having to support white elephant projects that compete with NASA's budget.
I'd say we're doing well, better than 10-20 years ago when the ISS had more of the "space pie," because space explorations is dispersed.
I definitely agree with the spirit of "earthlings unite" but I also like the plurality of space agencies. Hopefully, India is hooked and we'll see more from them.
No hate on international (or non national) projects though. Maybe Israel & India can combine forces for a 3rd mission. Both attempted a moon mission for around $100m. Both crashed their first attempt. If a 3rd mission succeeds we'll have a win for cooperation and we'll also have a proof of concept for affordable moon missions.
Ability to choose different paths is far more appealing than suffering under some inescapable dystopian global diktat you have in mind. So yes, we should extend tribal thinking to space. Platitudes like "we are single human race" are as meaningful as saying we are all life.
Also: how exactly is OP being sadistic, or planning a "global diktat"? Those are very strong accusations.
Otherwise, yes, you are right, it's a grand pipe dream. Will all the nations contribute equally in terms of technological, financial and expert human resources ?
Besides, tribal, nationalistic thinking is very good for competition and speeding technological progress. It is what took US and Russia to space in the first place. Nations and civilisations try ten times as as hard if they know someone is competing with them.
Imagine if the Russians today had a Space-X competitor...
Followed by Samsung launching the SpaceX Note Max.
It's mostly a matter of conspicuous consumption, aside from possible military applications and meager civilian technological advances.
The civilian tech benefits, even if you only look at the immediate spinoffs technologies in the short-term, are rather significant. There were over 2,200 tech transfer transactions in 2012 alone, beyond the ~50 or so they profile annually in Spinoff, and ranging from small software usage agreements to patents used for massive changes in the market. There are a ton of articles and infographics out there that list just some of those spinoff technologies that people often directly experience in their daily lives. I don't think meager is an applicable descriptor, even if we haven't seen the sort NASA generate the kind of "wow!" technologies like flying cars, personal jetpacks, and space colonies that people in the 50s imagined would be commonplace by now.
What's really interesting, however, is that space spending is rarely defended—or even thought about much—in these terms. In that sense, NASA spending is often discussed in terms of national prestige or a very general sense of scientific advancement. The science benefit is absolutely, 100% true, and an excellent reason in its own right, but sadly not one that has a lot of political persuasiveness. Outside of regions that are directly involved in NASA manufacturing and operations (which lends itself to fierce congressional support by their elected legislators), there's a sense of "that money is spent 'out there' in space, not here at home." Of course, the national prestige aspect does give space funding a bit more protection from the sort of direct attacks we've seen directed at various basic research funding and grants. No legislator wants to be the one to kill something "as American as apple pie."
IIRC, at one time the early development of integrated circuits was boasted as a spinoff of space programs. However, it turned out to be a spinoff of classified missile programs by the Air Force and Navy.
But I must note how none of the benefits came from any of the lofty predictions coming true: colonizing other worlds, etc.
If anything we found out that we cannot colonize anything, NASA research gave us cheap flying, globalization of commerce that we now use to negatively impact the Earth ... in the end, instead of giving us a new world, it is making us lose the one we have.
The space race is over, but it happened because the two most technologically advanced nations were competing for dominance that would essentially earn them the "world champion" title. That need to win the title is how we all got to space in under a decade.
Now smaller nations are competing for third and fourth place, and that's creating a technological revolution for them right now.
So think more long term. We've always been on the same team, but these are pre-season practices where we're all split into subteams and pit against each other to determine the roster. USA and Russia are first string. China and India are competing for second string.
When the season starts and were all wearing the same colors; we'll be unstoppable.
Reinventing wheels is hugely important to advancing technology, both between countries and between companies. The notion that getting rid of competition is beneficial because of the saving in redundant effort is an evergreen fallacy.
The problem with doing single efforts is the huge risk that the effort screws up, or is subverted for illegitimate purposes, and if there's no redundancy it blocks everything. Single efforts become breeding grounds of entitlement and rent seeking.
Space programs benefit from a fairly centralized approach, with teams of engineers working to analyze and correct glitches and anomalies in real time. It would be harder to coordinate a distributed team when time is of the essence.
but play Sid Meier's Civilization
read about operation paper clip
and read about Helium on the moon
and it's not just space, you can say same about any technological advancement. why re-invent? why not collaborate? I guess, you've think deeper about nation states in current form.
Nothing more than distracting partisan virtue signaling.
US is doing just fine.
This one is a classic flamewar tangent that has happened countless times, leads nowhere good, and is quite off topic.
Edit: it looks like you've been posting quite a few unsubstantive comments to HN generally. Could you please not? We're trying for a bit better quality level than internet default here.
But you can’t deny that the Tragedy of the Commons can now be applied to the moon...
Calling the moon landing a government PR gimmick is highly irrespectful to the scientists behind this.
GP is just highlighting that India's ruling party made this unnecessarily political. I'm not sure why it's being downvoted when it's factually accurate and is interesting in the context of the discussion. This is exactly the same thing that was going on in the Soviet Union where space project schedules were dictated by key party dates and celebrations. Not sure if it was a factor here, but multiple Soviet missions suffered due to being pushed to meet politically motivated party deadlines.
Most of the science is indeed onboard the orbiter. The mission was a success for the scientists.
Could you share some citations to justify your comment? There is no evidence out there that Chandrayaan was politicized by the Government. ISRO is funded by the Government and Department of Space directly comes under the PM. So, there is bound to be some Government/Minister presence.
My issue is that the 100 day celebration was timed around rover landing and unfortunately rover did not land.
So there is no 'factual' correctness in the comment. And adding political angle and then comparing India to Soviet based on that is unnecessary.
His second term just started in May
Respectfully, you are not right. Just go down this thread and you'll find one comment which says "Just because Nehru did one thing right doesn't absolve his wrongs"
There has been a coordinated attempt to distort history and malign Nehru. Not claiming that he did not screw up, he did. But he doesn't get credit due to the misinformation campaign
My point isn’t that it’s a distraction, but that it’s also about building party power.
Kashmir is just the brightest, clearest signal regarding the goals of his administration.
Edit: While the push to complete it came in 2015, it was (see poster below) in the works as far back as 2007, and I was mistaken to think it’s directly attributable to Modi.
It's just lazy to lay every action at Modi's feet.
So even if ISRO fails it is temporary. And we all are unconditionally proud of ISRO no matter what.
Regarding Nehru, one good deed doesn't get rid of his other sins and royal screw ups.
Chest thumping is fine for your success, not of someone else's in which one had a grand total of 0 contribution
Dang: parent comment is yet another flame war thing.
Doing exactly what I said in my origin comment! Blaming Nehru while PM tales credit for ISRO, an org started by Nehru
You don't get to chest thump after you cut salaries of ISRO staff and yet want to use their work for nationalisic agenda
But ISRO was away from this madness and political agenda. Now Modi has turned his eye on this organization, god save ISRO because Modi has tried to undermine the independence of every other major institutions like Army, RBI, EC, CAG etc.
ISRO is funded by the Government and PM heads the Department of Sapce. So, what did you expect him to do? Nod off and go to sleep. It's actually good to have a PM who stands by country's scientists even at the time of failure(and not just at the time of success).
Okay. So for you, presence of the PM at an event(with significant probability of failure) which involved tremendous amount of nation's prowess(scientific as well as non-scientific) and that too by the department which directly falls under him is a PR exercise.
Thanks for clarifying. Spared me reading rest of the irrelevant detail which probably has nothing to do with Space.
What do you mean "focus"? The landing mission was not controlled by the scientists at all. The mission was taken over by the lander and was automated. The lander chose the landing spot and the trajectory. The scientists could do nothing but just monitor the data coming in. Modi being there or not being there would not have changed the outcome. So stop this canard. It is getting ridiculous now.
And Modi's presence won't change anything. They have been working on this for 12 years. If you think Modi's presence would make a difference you are just insulting the Scientific minds that work in ISRO. He went there to support his team as he heads the Department of Space. A leader always is with his team during tough times. That is all there is to it. Trying to see political angle in everything has become a stupid habit of the left brigade and to such an extent that they do not care about the Country anymore.
Modi's presence sure wouldn't make the lander land better. What if there are key decisions that need to be taken in some missions, in an emergency, would you want politicians looking over their shoulder ? Modi could have gone a day later and given a raucous congratulatory speech or a motivating speech.
That's not how it works. He had to attend some keys events in Maharashtra in official capacity for the rest of the day. He can't just drop in at any time even as a PM.
There are no key decisions as there is no realtime communication. As simple as that. There is a huge delay between when the signal is emitted from the lander and the time it takes to reach the ground station. That process cannot be sped up, emergency or not. Instead of all this whataboutery why not just take some time and read up on the actual facts? What is this nonsense about politicians looking over their shoulder? Modi is a respected man in ISRO. And this isn't the first time Modi visited ISTRAC during a launch or an important mission. Nor is he the first Prime Minister to do so. Manmohan Singh also visited ISRO during important launch missions. Heck the entire Department comes under the Prime Minister. So I don't see what all this fuss is about unless it is a hatred for Modi which has no cure! And are Scientists going to be affected by the presence of the Prime Minister and not the entire Leftist International press (Specifically BBC, New York Times, Washington Post and the other usual leftist outlets) that has written nothing but garbage about Indian Space Program and how it is not worth it when India has to still tackle poverty? Isn't that greater pressure than the presence of the PM who has nothing but been supportive of ISRO whether it be success or failure? If I were an ISRO scientist I would be more worried about leftist Western Media breathing down my neck hoping against hope that we screw up so they can write more articles about how India lacks toilets and basic infrastructure and post images of slums rather than be worried about a Prime Minister who has never been bad to me in any shape or form. A PM who got many scientific projects that were stuck in limbo for over a decade in an endless loop of official approvals out so I could work on them. I would be scared of this supportive PM and not the negative press? Really?
If I were you, I would have called for removal of the leftist International Press that dared to insult ISRO and its Scientists and still gets an opportunity to sit in ISTRAC and watch the entire Mission. But nope. Target the Prime Minister because all he did was to go and give some encouragement. He is a softer target because he is used to taking insults all the time. And you know who insulted ISRO scientists after the launch? It was a journalist from a leftist news organization called NDTV: Pallava Bagla . Is this the way to behave with a Scientist? Modi had to go back again to console the Scientists and the Chairman who was in tears . Absolutely shameless and disgusting.
> Please stop calling anyone who doesn't agree with you "left" brigade and "anti national". It insults everyone's intelligence. You don't know me or my political views. You know my opinion on this issue, let's stick to debating that.
Because you are insulting everyones intelligence here by stating that Modi's presence will somehow affect Scientists working on the Mission. Mine is more saner, realistic and grounded in facts compared to yours. And yes you belong to the leftist brigade. There is now no doubt about that. The more and more you try to argue your non-existent point the more evident it becomes. That is how all frustrated leftists behave. Somehow try to stick their own fallacious assumptions on Modi and hope it will stick. It is a vicious spiral. Once you start hating someone you try finding everything that can justify that hatred. Even if that something is extremely irrational. Imagine if the person sitting there wasn't Modi and it was someone else you like. Would that have changed the outcome of the Mission? Nope. Would the Scientists have felt any pressure? Nope. There you have your answer.
He heads the Department of Space. That's good enough to justify his presence.
> IMO leaders should let scientists focus in crunch time.
Scientists were very much focussed from what I saw.