![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Yup, racism. Right out in the open. Upvoted, even.
Yup, racism. Right out in the open. Upvoted, even.
You can be more direct with it. Going out and doing something you know will fail is failing on purpose. SpaceX fails on purpose sometimes. They don’t just tolerate the risk of it; they set up cameras and other sensors and push their systems to failure on purpose.
Another example of failing on purpose is when you do push-ups until the point of collapse.
They’re blowing it on extra helium to make up for all the blowing helium
You didn’t mention any mistakes though
Well, maybe it’s offset. It’s hard to say whether A > B or B < A when you don’t know the value of either one.
So you’re saying that in the 70s they had predictions about how things will go bad for the next century?
Where are these predictions? It’s been 50 years so at least some of these predictions should be checkable now.
I would feel so much better if I could see some examples of climate science predictions being proven accurate.
Yeah, and now despite what the scientists say, everyone believes climate change is going to render Earth uninhabitable, and we are taking massive steps to avoid the problem as if it were an existential threat, which the science again does not support.
We’re treating climate change as if it were as serious as a planet killer asteroid, and we’re massively violating people’s rights as if it were.
“All the facts” is counterfactual, superstitious thinking. There is no such thing as “all the facts”, except in game theory examples like tic-tac-toe.
In all realms other than small mathematical models, there’s no circumstance under which one has all the facts.
One of the big risks of not having a global communications satellite network is that people can get cut off from the internet by land-based ISPs loyal to whatever local government they’re trying to be free of.
So there’s a danger of just saying “no satellite clusters”.
We’re always balancing dangers against other dangers. There’s danger in not acting, not growing too.
So if moving from PFAS to alternate chemicals means moving foolishly into untested chemicals, why didn’t they wait to test them? Were they forced to make the change?
We will die of starvation because nothing is 100% safe, so waiting until we find that level of safety means we just won’t do anything.
When there’s drag involved it’s different, but in vacuum there’s no relationship between weight and orbit.
Are you referring to the effects of upper atmospheric drag on the orbital maintenance requirements?
Well yeah ever since you guys forced us to stop doing the airplane chemtrails, we’ve been out of business.
That or an oil change
Are you regularly deleting git repos?
I recommend playing Penguin Pursuit on Lumosity
Planning the murder of 500,000 people
poly fill indeed