And the HN trend continues: attack the speaker, ignore the words, congratulate self, move on.
In the spirit of disclosure, I agree with Yarvin on many points. One position I've never seen thoroughly rebutted is the mutual doctrine/dogma of every public and ivy league University system. Just like the Catholic Church, you get turf disputes, subtle thematic variations, and degrees of skill differences. Just like the Protestants, you get dramatic variations of window dressing. But I challenge anyone to demonstrate a core, ideological difference held by any number of institutions. Obviously, Bob Jones University doesn't count, and why should they? The bare handful of private institutions that deviate from the Norm do not count in any other setting. Harvard™ makes an edict, the Church of Learn follows suit, heretics are smoked out, and Progress marches forward.
I think this is portentous. I think this is a canary that many will regret not noticing its asphyxiation. SSC, by most any measure, is a dyed in the wool progressive. The whole thing feels like a purge that is winding up and spiraling off into the next round eliminating undesirables. I wouldn't be surprised if the next victim is the triggerman/journalist who is responsible for this instance.
Can you refute the statement or do you just find it troubling? I know the trope is that Intel people are all crew cut conservatives, but, like most Hollywood stereotypes, that is utter codswallop. The American University Complex churns out left leaning specialists, and the intelligence agencies hire exclusively from the AUC. It is not a very big leap at all. Stztrok and Page are very representative of modern IC.
I find it troubling,in that it indicates that the author believes the FBI are already politicized just the wrong way, but also I think it's kind of not true.
‘Lowball intelligence’ I am going to assume that was directed towards me. I posted this link. Because I have a ‘farm’ suffix instead of ‘GitHub’ suffix with handle.
I picked this handle to apply to YC twice for Ag robotics. And I am proud of it. And was told that there is no money in Ag. That’s ok. We..lowball intelligences..will continue to feed everyone irrespective of who they are or what they do. Or whatever high intelligence reading list that needs perusing. Please carry on. The world needs its next Tinder crushing app. Because. Priorities.
I might be a lowballer myself. I'm not a fan of Fox News, or any legacy media for that matter, but I take umbrage to the idea that the source dictates the recipient. CNN consistently inflates and mislabels information to fit a narrative, but that doesn't mean the people watching are by necessity failing at reasoning.
Keep posting. The bar for HN is "interesting topics." This absolutely qualified. Also, keep the faith. Food is the great leveller. The world will probably come back around to appreciating those that give it to us.
On a certain blog that is completely outside acceptable standards for wrongthink and political correctness, a very popular topic of late is why NASA seems to have it in for Elon Musk Personally and SpaceX generally. The commonly stated reasons, and I will be paraphrasing and transliterating freely, are: HR culture defining administration wide objectives and methods and reasoning, professional embarrassment over languishing reputation, gross incompetence, turf defense of budget and status, and a desire to stay firmly planted on Terra while being lauded for dreaming of the stars.
I am always skeptical of any argument that is unfamiliar, but more and more it does appear that NASA has lost its way. The shuttle was an obvious mistake in retrospect; there may even be some credibility to the obscure theory that NASA only did it to further separate themselves from DoD. I think NASA has become a political creature that is less concerned with science and more concerned with SCIENCE™. If this is the case, they will fight tooth and nail against any expansion of manned space exploration (because it will be both private and military in nature), the will fight against innovation that doesn't spring from their own workshop(s), and they will use Cape Canaveral (and their heritage facilities/infrastructure) as a way to bully "adversaries" into submission.
I hope this isn't the case, and if it is, I hope they can reverse whatever practices and policies that have led us to where we are. As it stands though, it appears NASA is more like OSHA then it is like its historical instance.
NASA has always been a political creature, but its mission has changed over the years. Its original mission was to beat the USSR into space. Its new mission is to funnel money to key congressional districts. But it has always been political. Science was always a facade.
Source: I worked for NASA for 15 years (1988-2000, 2001-2004).
The saddest thing about NASA is that the remarkable engineering and scientific capability it possesses... is managed by NASA. It's a great example of one of the most profoundly dysfunctional bureaucracies within the U.S. Government.
It is important as a community that we are aware of the criteria, both claimed and actual, which guide the moderation of our community. Statements like this give people like me an opportunity to research and learn more about the decision making of the mods.
I'm confused by what you mean. NASA has provided SpaceX with lots of expertise and assistance. And you are aware that Starliner is a Boeing vehicle, not SpaceX?
> NASA has provided SpaceX with lots of expertise and assistance.
Can you provide a link about that? I'm aware about SpaceX-NASA cooperation in debugging SpaceX disasters and also financial assistance from NASA on various stages of SpaceX evolution, but would like to learn about substantial involvement of NASA into important technical design and development processes in SpaceX.
"In a salient departure from traditional engine design, NASA and its business partners have adapted commercial, off-the-shelf technologies and common manufacturing methods to develop the Fastrac engine. Significant involvement by small business has aided in broadening the competition and producing lower cost hardware.
For example, Barber-Nichols, Inc. of Arvada, Colo., worked alongside Marshall engineers to design and manufacture the turbopump. The Colorado-based company is experienced in building turbomachinery for the automotive industry and chemical plants, and not traditionally associated with the aerospace industry. The company helped design a turbopump for the Fastrac engine that can be built easily using commercial manufacturing techniques."
Sounds like NASA itself took help from the industry then.
"The SpaceX turbopump was an entirely new, clean sheet design contracted to Barber-Nichols, Inc. in 2002 who performed all design, engineering analysis, and construction; the company had previously worked on turbopumps for the RS-88 (Bantam) and NASA Fastrac engine programs."
Turbopump is often the most complex part of the engine; doing it from scratch raises doubts how much the engine was derived.
I don't think NASA helped to SpaceX that much before Falcon-1 reached the orbit.
After Congress pulled critical funding for a good and actually cheap in use Shuttle, DoD poured money with caveat of requirements that killed shuttle economy long term, many of the requirements never being executed (like polar orbits from Vandenberg)
After reading the Bender Affidavit, I can't look at headlines saying anything about Saudi Arabia and not wonder what Qatar is trying to make me believe.
And who wants you to believe everything in the Bender Affidavit? There's certainly little evidence for large portions of it. It's difficult when truth and lies are mixed together with no border between them.
>Research has shown...more qualified candidates...
First, can you link a source? Second, what does "more qualified" mean in the context of politicians? They are selected by popularity in the majority; capabilities are downstream from likeability. This, one could argue that "more qualified" could be construed as "excellent hair" or "large breasts." This is not to say that the job of political official does not have constraints or optimums, but the method of job placement is the issue in terms of my question.
The actual term used is "kompetent", and they talk about the general competency of the individual, and assume this correlates with their suitability as politicians. They then show that their measure of competency correlates positively with municipalities having better economy and better perceived service by the citizens. They also get more votes and things like that. The measure is basically if the person makes more than average within their peer group.
Why was blargmaster33's comment killed within 1 minute of posting? Which guideline does it violate? What rule does it break? Most importantly, if it is a false statement, what proves that it is so?
And we’re all surely missing the thoughts of blargmaster featuring such insights as “Pinochet did nothing wrong” and “The only good communist is a dead one” and “God bless the Spanish for expunging this evil from existence” where “this evil” is the Mayan people.
I struggle to see the logic behind your assertion. If the capacity for involvement of female creators/contributors is limited by the likelihood of possible sexual harassment, then how do you account for female involvement/contribution in microblogging (specifically Instagram), discos & clubs, and large scale social events. These three types of thing all have the very rich potential for sexual harassment opportunities, yet it would appear a lot of women flock to them all the same. I would argue that the motivation to be involved is the largest factor in involvement, by any party, and consequences are secondary, if even considered, depending on potential status gain.
The relevance to the issue at hand is that science fiction is already a subgenre (though it is on the rise) that has a rather narrow range of fan base with an even more narrow range of potential authors. There are so few people writing good science fiction; I honestly wonder how much the carnal predilections of a now dead but no less prolific author is moving the needle.
If you could magically make science fiction authorship on par with being a YouTube personality in terms of perceived status, an army of Weinsteins and Dworkins couldn't keep little girls and boys out of crafting stories.
In the spirit of disclosure, I agree with Yarvin on many points. One position I've never seen thoroughly rebutted is the mutual doctrine/dogma of every public and ivy league University system. Just like the Catholic Church, you get turf disputes, subtle thematic variations, and degrees of skill differences. Just like the Protestants, you get dramatic variations of window dressing. But I challenge anyone to demonstrate a core, ideological difference held by any number of institutions. Obviously, Bob Jones University doesn't count, and why should they? The bare handful of private institutions that deviate from the Norm do not count in any other setting. Harvard™ makes an edict, the Church of Learn follows suit, heretics are smoked out, and Progress marches forward.