Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | amichail's comments login

Do you think more than a billion people will watch the catch attempt, either live or later, in this Starship flight test?

No, I don’t think one in every eight people on earth is going to see the catch attempt or even care about it. The launch and catch attempt is exciting but I don’t think it’s something that most of the planet is following. Even in the US, I doubt many people will watch it. It’s not the next moon landing.

If we’re talking about the near future? No, most people do not care.

If it’s successful it will likely be in the history books, so maybe billions of martians will one day watch.


Over how long of a time span are we giving this? I don't think so.

https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceX/streams = most popular live stream has 33M views

https://www.youtube.com/@SpaceX/videos = most popular video has 29M views

I'm pretty sure this also includes embedded views from news articles that embed the videos.

So to answer the question: In the short term, unlikely it seems. Over the span of hundreds of years? Likely so.


Honestly I don't even see a future Moon landing garnering that many people.

Maybe a Mars landing would, but non-techie people just don't seem very interested in space.


probably not live, i imagine that many people will hear news about it though


Why? Don't you touch-type?

If you mean can I use a keyboard without looking at it, then yes (once I have my hands positioned properly).

But I don't think that would help much. The keyboard would have to be positioned in an awkward place, which would throw off my hand position and I expect ruin my keyboarding skills.

But, more importantly, I'm far, far too distracted to have the mental cycles left over for keyboarding. For a similar reason, I can't stand listening to music during dental procedures.

But others may take to this better. There's nothing wrong with having a keyboard as an option, of course. I seriously doubt it would benefit me any, though.

Update: Now that I've thought about it, I'd find a simpler variation useful: two big buttons, one under each hand, one meaning "Yes" and the other meaning "No". My dentists have generally instituted a similar, but non-technical solution: raise one hand for "yes", the other for "no"/"stop"/"I'm in distress".


I've always used the system of "grunt so they can take their hands out" so I can speak, more or less.

Don't dialogue-heavy movies (with limited dynamic range) tend to have really loud sound because hearing the dialogue is especially important?

You may want to read up on industry best practices for theatrical sound mixing and digital cinema delivery.

I think that's true, yes.

It would make more sense for theaters to have headphones to give an extra boost to people who need it. Some theaters have a system called Hearing Loop which will send the movie audio right to the person's hearing aids, without having to deal with other background noise that might be in the theater.

> Hearing Loop is an induction loop system which magnetically transmits the auditorium sound to compatible hearing aids. Our guests who have hearing aids with T-Coils can link directly into the theatre sound system at the touch of a button on their hearing aid. This delivers our guests a crisp and clear sound free from background noise and no headset is required. Hearing Loop is available at Landmark Theatres in Chicago and Aquarius Theatre, San Francisco Peninsula.

https://www.landmarktheatres.com/httpswwwlandmarktheatrescom...

I don't think movie volume goes down for everyone else, because these things exist. It just gives these people extra help, when they still have trouble, as loud as it is.


I don’t think it’s true at all. I think they play it loud to play up the rollercoaster aspect of seeing a film — of getting you viscerally involved with what’s going on onscreen.

It's not; there is a nominal series of standards for this.

Maybe the paperless office would have succeeded with such a ban.


Isn't whether you vote public information in most states?


Whether you voted maybe but not who you voted for.


It's not about the need to secure a good academic job but rather the need to feel good about the academic job that you have already secured.


Sure, that can happen. OP wrote “secure a good academic job.” But I think lazy and unprepared students stretching their adolescence out on their parent’s dime, or on loans they will struggle to repay, offers a better explanation overall.

In my own field, programming, I have to work with expert beginners [1] who actively resist learning and mastery, and complain about the sometimes hard work and study needed. I don’t think that happens because employers try to make themselves look smart.

An anecdote to illustrate. Years ago I worked with a project manager who had a business degree from a good school. He mentioned it fairly often. He had no imagination and seemed stuck on GANTT charts. I bought a bookshelf from him, went to his house to pick it up. He offered to include the books he had in boxes in his garage. He told me he hadn’t read anything since college, over a decade before. Can’t blame his professors for that.

[1] https://daedtech.com/how-developers-stop-learning-rise-of-th...


I meant potential suffering experienced by the quantum computer.


I have not noticed any of the people who believe that LLMs are conscious to make the leap to concluding that using LLMs is morally wrong. Maybe I’ve just not heard enough of what they have to say?


Explain that a little more please?



What if the bullying victim got enough money to buy a sports car?


The amount doesn't matter. As long as the government, and not the bully, is paying, the bully won't care.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: