>I feel like maybe we've needed an "OceanX" before a "SpaceX"
SpaceX is based on the idea that our planet will someday be uninhabitable, so we need to be ready to colonize other planets. The sooner we start, the sooner we get there.
OceanX might be fun science, but it's not going to save us.
The human condition is delicate and mortal, when you realise this you realise how important it is to do everything you can for Elon Musk while he's still alive
No, spaceX is based on the idea that Elon Musk likes rockets but loves money. The IPO proves that - the company pivoted to renting server capacity through xAI and pushing a ridiculous plan to put server farms in space via their constantly exploding starship as a means to inflate stock and make him a trillionaire.
The implication that SpaceX will "save us" is quite funny. If that was something the world truly worried about, our hopes cannot be on an american private company that might or might not save someone depending on their preferences or their political views.
The whole idea that we can simply pop off earth and colonize another planet is literally insane. There is a reason why no governement across the world is treating colonizing mars as a serious mission.
It is the same marketing technique as "AI WILL DESTROY THE WORLD so we must make it" fear-mongering based marketing. Of course a rocket company wants people to colonize mars, doesn't mean its going to "save" humanity.
>The implication that SpaceX will "save us" is quite funny.
nobody implied that. some people state the hope for it but that does not include me, I simply explained why OceanX does not satisfy SpaceX's goals.
everybody on this site is interested in the topic of exploring other planets in any solar system. that's all SpaceX is trying to do, but because of extraneous irrational unmet emotional needs people here simply lose their shit when the topic of SpaceX comes up.
Meanwhile, SpaceX will continue to be NASA's primary subcontractor. "Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe." (The dogs bark. The caravan passes.)
if you borrow against it and buy shares of stock, the stockmarket generally can be counted on for at least 7% returns, and the borrowing cost would be 5%, so no, chances are the interest would not eat up the borrowing.
>This didn't matter when humans were the only readers. But now most PDFs end up in an LLM.
but it did matter, a lot. the PDF format was originally proprietary and was designed to be proprietary and to disallow casual text extraction. I just didn't like the way you glossed over that, "it was OK that people for over 30 years were not given any way for the information they were given to be unshackled, but now it matters because our AI overlords were prefer that so we must change things!"
"The exception that proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning is contested. Henry Watson Fowler's Modern English Usage identifies five ways in which the phrase has been used,[1] and each use makes some sort of reference to the role that a particular case or event takes in relation to a more general rule."
duckduckgo search assist: The phrase "the exception that proves the rule" originates from the Latin legal principle "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis," which means that the existence of an exception indicates that a general rule exists. This concept suggests that if an exception is noted, it implies there must be a rule that applies in other cases.
>As someone who works in this space, the headline is a bit of a stretch. The overlap in the locations of Pokemon Go Player data and any active Drone heavy theaters of war is a tiny sliver (or zero?)
are you saying that drone training in quiet residential neighborhoods is not training? are you saying self driving cars can only drive in theaters where they've been trained, because autonomous training is always specific by neighborhood? are you saying that if a particular region has some novel terrain that all previous training must be discarded?
However, GDP may be measuring the opposite of living standards. In the UK, the NHS will be effectively paying cost prices for healthcare (which is generally available free to the public), whereas Mississippi will presumably factor in expensive healthcare as part of the GDP. Higher GDP, but a lower living standard if you have very limited access to healthcare.
SpaceX is based on the idea that our planet will someday be uninhabitable, so we need to be ready to colonize other planets. The sooner we start, the sooner we get there.
OceanX might be fun science, but it's not going to save us.
reply