Humans, they are humans too you see if you say anything about this you will be in grave trouble, if you try to do something good you will pay for it. Not many are even commenting here which tells you why they are avoiding this.
Thought Crime is serious so it should be automatically reported to the authorities, any thoughts of self harm or unaliving oneself will also be reported to the nearest health facility. In addition thinking of words that typically get people cancelled or even thinking about certain gestures will get you banned as well.
This is false, the situation in the United States has definitely been less favorable however the situation in many developing countries has gotten even worse and thus there are more people who will want to work in the US since they do not have the luxury of living
White Collar hiring and salary growth has picked up in China, India, ASEAN, etc. Living standards for the average person won't be hot, but if you are working in a STEM field you are earning on the higher end, and by mid-career you can afford to insulate yourself from some of the worst aspects living in gated communities or suburbs.
Azerbaijan might be a different story, as you guys might be getting some contagion from Turkiye and Russia's economic slowdown.
It is correct that reforms are needed. It is interesting however that this generation has the lowest mental toughness, since the standards did not necessarily increase but the people changed and could not handle the stress, wait until the tough times come.
* 25y of constant combat deployments around the world
* 2008 recession
* 2026-ish recession
* Loss of company pensions and stability
* Massive housing crisis in availability of type of homes needed, and costs - builders are only incentivized to build upper middle class+ housing in many areas
* Gig work where people are working 3 jobs with no benefits or retirement becoming more popular
* College financial cost unsustainable
* Massive increase in school and public shootings
* Covid
Any ideas of stability in US society that may have come from their parents simply do not exist anymore. The path of a middle class life for most people in the US is gone.
A gazillion more things I'm not thinking of.
I'm getting close to 50, and any time somebody talks about how "x,y,z generation is weak", not even 99% of the time, but 100% of the time, I know the person saying that is simply incompetent.
> any time somebody talks about how "x,y,z generation is weak", not even 99% of the time, but 100% of the time, I know the person saying that is simply incompetent.
Don't assume incompetence when simple malice can explain the observations... especially when the topic is a blame game.
Isn’t this list seen as reasons intentionally directed perseverance has eroded, since these events condition people to just react and survive on a shorter-term horizon? You two may be using different definitions of mental toughness. Just observing you two interact.
I mean, are you really trying to say that the 2010s were worse than the 1930s or getting drafted into armed combat in the 1910s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s? To me, that's just playing into the stereotype of millennials.
I didn't say anything along those lines. In fact, I want to highlight something in particular that I said that makes me wonder how much you wanted to react vs how much you actually read:
"Any ideas of stability in US society that may have come from their parents simply do not exist anymore."
I alluded to the 25 years of constant background combat deployments that most people aren't even aware of happening unless they are extremely impacted by it.
It seems like you're arguing against the statement that "This generation [which we'll assume refers to millenials] has the lowest mental toughness".
Then - again, by my reading here, so correct me if I'm misinterpreting you - you attempt to support your counterpoint with a list of events which - while certainly not great - pale, in my opinion, to the day-to-day fear of atomic war and the very real knowledge that even as things stand (e.g., without atomic war), your birthday could still be picked tomorrow, and within months you'll be shipped off to the killing fields. Simply put, it's possible for a thing to be bad, but not as-bad as another thing.
I don't think previous generations were under any illusion of societal stability, except possibly the baby boomers - and they had 'Nam, JFK/MLK, Kent State, Watergate, and COINTELPRO to snap them out of that.
Even with all the events you mention, US society is still far more stable than it was in the past. Of course, it'll seem much less stable if one only chooses to focus on the unstable, but I think it's fair to label that a you-problem.
> this generation has the lowest mental toughness, since the standards did not necessarily increase but the people changed and could not handle the stress, wait until the tough times come
A bunch of people in every generation say this.
My grandparents said it about those who got to skip growing up in the depression. Their grandparents about selling everything they owned and moving to America. Some days as I trudge through the snow to work uphill both ways I think of them.
I was searching for some ancient quotes describing the same sentiment and found a page with several quotes, including this one from Aristotle (4th century BCE):
"[Young people] are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life, nor have they experienced the force of circumstances.
...
They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it."
Did the standards actually "not increased?" It is very easy to just assume younger people cant possibly have more challenges then we did. And very hard to admit when they actually face harder competition then we did.
Extremely good decision, and it is also cheap the regulatory hellfire they would need to experience to expand in europe is mediated by just purchasing a European company there. This is the best strategy for any US company wanted to either start or expand in Europe, just outright buy a European business there and don't change logos or marketing material to signal that it is actually owned by an American company to appeal to EU customers. Many European companies are actually being owned by US companies and Americans via trust and off shore shells, also as the European Upper Class goes to study and settle in the US their inheritance becomes American in that the proceeds will go to the IRS. Europe is increasingly being owned by American despite what seems to be happening with sentiments now, people do not realize that the actual military arm of NATO is controlled by a US 4 star general the communications network and missile defense system of NATO is under US control.
well it may seem like it but they don't pay taxes to the US Federal Government and NATO is good for the US to offload the costs while maintaining control over the military equipment.
Some of you maybe thinking why would the German BND help the NSA without the German Governments Knowledge? The answer is not CLASSIFIED, it could be:
1) The NSA can do it themselves but they are asking for it for convenience
2) There is a lot of intelligence sharing among the agencies and they can cut them off easily
they don't understand, it's as if they don't want to understand even statements like the US going out of NATO tell you they do not know how much of NATO the US really controls the military decision maker is a 4 star US General, most of the missile systems and RADARs are under US control all the communication system of NATO is under US Control, without the US it would be scattered military units and a considerable number of EU made equipment with a lot of US made Equipment in different countries.
Of course, even Europe cannot launch cheaply anymore. Arianespace is crawling to space; they are left for dead. The only serious players are the US and China. It's reached a point where it has become like trying to manufacture a state-of-the-art 5nm chip in a developing nation: possible, but at an absurd cost. You might achieve an initial parametric yield of only 10%, meaning only a tiny fraction of the chips coming off the line meet the basic electrical specifications. Even then, the functional yield (the percentage that actually performs the intended computation correctly at the target speed) might be even lower, say 5%. You'd be throwing away 95 out of every 100 chips, and the cost per usable die would be astronomical due to the sheer expense of acquiring and maintaining the lithography equipment, cleanroom facilities, and specialized expertise – resources that are heavily concentrated in a few leading nations and require years, if not decades, to build from scratch.
SpaceX didn't spend an absurd amount of money getting Falcon 9 to where it is. It was a lot, but pretty typical, even somewhat cheap, for developing a brand new rocket. Repeating their feat should be even cheaper, since you won't be taking detours trying out parachutes and such before settling on the final architecture. It's a relatively straightforward application of known technology, not bleeding edge stuff like 5nm chip making.
An organization that can produce Ariane 6 should be able to produce a Falcon 9 clone with similar effort. The real problem is overcoming the of the old, slow, expensive way of doing things.
Don't get me wrong, that problem of overcoming the old, slow, expensive way of doing things is huge for any established launch organization. I don't expect Airbus or ULA to get there. But it's not because the technology is so difficult that they can't do it. A new rocket company with a couple billion dollars in funding would have a good chance.
Note that in doing so, they'd be reaching where SpaceX was a decade ago, and by the time they got there, it seems pretty likely that full reusability will be working a year or so from now, at least for basic earth-orbit flights.
The old slow way of doing things is deeply embedded in the organizational DNA of Arianespace (and ULA.). It would actually be easier for a brand new company to do it than one of these legacy behemoths (particularly Arianespace, which is dragged down by the international way in which they build.)
Arianespace is so thoroughly broken that they genuinely believed that reusability, if they could even accomplish it, would be bad for their business because it would reduce the number of rockets they build. Bonkers.
Funnily enough the European Launcher Challenge just dropped recently, supposed to be modelled on NASA's procurement process that ultimately lead to SpaceX being a thing. But the EUR169m contracts aren't likely to get you a Falcon 9 clone, and there isn't exactly a ton of private capital for newspace sloshing around in Europe
If anything Europe has the opposite problem: the launch startups are all far too small to do anything on a Falcon 9 scale. SpaceX did't get to Falcon 9 early either. Sure, Arianespace probably could build a Falcon 9 clone, but it's not something they'd want to self fund, and there's quite a few ESA members that don't want to see most of their budget contributions go to funding the development of a foreign launch monopolist...
> SpaceX didn't spend an absurd amount of money getting Falcon 9 to where it is
That's part of the genius of SpaceX's approach, which culminated in achieving what no one else has achieved on a comparatively shoestring budget.
Credit where it's due: Elon Musk (a) comprehended enough of the technical challenge to ask great questions (and see through BS answers), (b) set and maintained a ruthlessly efficient operational vision, (c) repeatedly took existential financial risks to achieve the next milestone, and (d) set a company vision that motivated people to work extremely hard to achieve what was previously impossible, and (e) worked his butt off solving problem after problem alongside employees.
Love or hate him, very few leaders have ever existed who led companies to accomplish similar feats.
Building rockets as cheaply as they did is the impressive part.
The EU can certainly throw money at the problem but that doesn’t necessarily manifest cheap rockets. It’s a product of leadership and culture. My experience with the EU is one of a top heavy bureaucracy that’s not overly conducive to this type of cowboy rocketry. Consider the absence of an EU version of Silicon Valley, it’s just computers and with the internet people can program from anywhere…
Luckily for you, the linked site has upcoming schedules to trivially look this up. India has 6 launches upcoming in 2025, Rosskosmos has 8 and Russian military has one more. So Russia is launching 50% more than India in 2025.
Money doesn't change hands for Russia launching astronauts or NASA launching cosmonauts. They're basically bartering for the sake of knowing the station will be manned even if one side gets grounded.
"Money doesn't change hands for Russia launching astronauts or NASA launching cosmonauts"
did you see my parent comment or not??? I am not trying to question their ability for them get to space, it doesn't matter if you CAN go to space but you didn't have money for it
its clear that NASA and Roscosmos collaboration days is numbered and would not continue in the future because geo politic
And Isar Aerospace is also European and is set to launch tomorrow (although they seem to think it will explode at some point). But I don’t know if they will be particularly cheap.
reply