I would imagine that to propagate any confidence value through the system you'd need to have priors for the confidence of correctness for all data in your training set. (and those priors change over time)
But the social nature of art also means that humans give the originator and their influences credit - of course not the entire chain but at least the nearest neighbours of influence. While a user of a diffusion generator does not even know the influences unless specifically asked for.
No accounting for particles yet, which you'll also keep hitting, making your ship's materials radioactive and causing lots of secondary particle showers, bremsstrahlung and the likes.
First the particles will act like radiation, then they'll start causing matter-antimatter pair creation with your hull, then you'll get some exotic heavy quarks popping into existence, then you'll get some Higgs particles forming and at some point questions like "what is the mass of my ship" stop making sense.
Adding to those arguments, you can include exports/imports into the CO2 emission estimation and suddenly one sees that a good part of China's CO2 emissions are for products that are exported to the EU and the US (Edit: see e.g. [0]).
So shifting high-emission production to China and then pointing the finger at China for products we consume is kinda dishonest.
Because anybody that is actually informed about SpaceX knows that the 'Musk isn't involved, its all Shotwell' is a line that Musk-haters have been using for 10+ years now.
Of course everybody who leaves SpaceX tells a different story. Journalists and others who observe SpaceX tell a different story.
Musk has literally been the leader since the company had 5 people, and he always had control of the companies direction. Shotwell is one important part of the team. But she was recruited by Musk and promoted by Musk into the position she now has.
People also used to say 'Musk has nothing to do with engines its all Tom Mueller' of course then Tom Mueller responded saying that was false. And of course once Mueller left, SpaceX is still doing great things with engines.
So the reason why 'Musk is always throwing into the ring with SpaceX' is simply because its the truth and all Anti-Musk Twitter warriors are not actually informed about the topic they simply have to discredited Musk whenever they can. Often they don't even care about spaceflight, they care about being against Musk.
Because Elon is the product lead (and founder and owner), Shotwell does the business development.
Product is way more interesting in this case than BD, considering it's the most badass rockets ever made. But feel free to praise Shotwell too, that's great too.
Plenty of people with first-hand knowledge and/or their own independently earned reputations have attested to Musk being deeply knowledgeable and deeply involved in engineering at SpaceX. The evidence of his worthiness of the title is so plentiful that — absence some better information not in the public domain — casual doubt is wholly unjustified.
Of course as soon one says this, someone else will misconstrue this as some ridiculous claim that Musk is a singular genius responsible for inventing everything. This is of course silly. He's only one human with a limited schedule. There are surely thousands of things happening every day at SpaceX which he has zero involvement in.
As we often say in computing: ideas are easy, execution is everything. But the biggest successes of SpaceX weren't just about having ideas, they were about having the gumption to fund them, and an ability to recruit the best people so that execution is possible. In fields like rocketry, one might instead say ideas are easy, identifying when an idea should have a billion dollars thrown at it is hard, and execution is damn fucking hard.
Yes. Please read any of the official comments about him by people who have worked with him, or just answers on Quora, or read the new biography. Or watch his actual comments and behavior on everyday astronaut interviews.
If 4 of those data points don’t convince you, you obviously don’t want to be convinced even in the slightest
I feel it's also a scaling issue: If you wanted to do all of the digital bookkeeping of today on paper, that would be perhaps impossible. I don't think personal note-taking is in any way a large contribution to paper use.
I do art on paper and even I don't go through 500 pages in a year. It's at work, things like 60 page reports that need to be printed for submission (and then get printed 2x or 3x again because you can replicate it).
The ease of printing documents is the culprit, you can just replicate large physical artifacts again and again. You can't do that with your personal notes that probably only exist as unique artifacts and maybe get scanned into a digital archive.
Regarding your other comment: why wouldn't a high-altitude detonation, even outside the atmosphere cause an EMP? I feel like the gamma photons emitted in space will eventually hit the atmosphere and with that cause electrons to spiral along field lines. Isn't the question just one of intensity?
Or is it largely dependent on multi-photon interactions to impart enough impulse on the electrons?
There are people who argue that there are ways to keep limited nuclear warfare limited. [0] I think the RAND institute also published some study on it not outright rejecting the idea but I can't find it atm.
The models can produce a very very biased memory (as any other form of history) - just by virtue of being a product of technology does not make these algorithms any more objective. They're trained on biased data after all.
So what we'll remember is the cliché form of everything. That's worth something in terms of history but is it an improvement over primary source material?
