They are certainly there with no means to return until February, which they will do on a different company’s capsule, from a mission that was supposed to last 8 days and instead will last 8 months. That sounds like stuck to me.
Whose fault is it, if not Boeing’s?
Not sure of any beginner FAQs on scanning.
I guess it all depends on how much scanning you plan to do, the size of things you want to scan, and how accurate you need the scans to be. Out of curiosity, what are you looking to scan? Is it something that can’t be modeled in CAD software?
At the risk of giving you yet another option - Teaching Tech did a video on a neat scanning rig called the OpenScan Mini. Looks like someone linked OpenScan below as well. You build it yourself from electronic components, a pi, a pi camera, and some printed parts. Results look pretty decent for what it would cost to build, and probably worth the time and effort if you plan to do lots of scanning.
This seems interesting. What’s the context here?
I take your anti-corporate point. However, I believe pro-doping would totally work if it was a gladiatorial bloodbath decathalon within the olympics itself. And if you get caught doping in the non-doping sports, you’re forced to compete in the decathalon with the juiced up killers. Jousting, Barenuckle boxing, Pride rules MMA, Hell in a Cell, no rules water polo, shit like that.
Mmm. I grew up in a different time too. Makes me ponder how the software circumstances of that time built in us a very different idea of what an iteration actually is, when it comes to writing. The fact that we couldn’t go back and atomically dissect the history of a piece. That a draft, and an edit, were something heavier. Maybe we’d have to think a bit more slowly and carefully before irreversibly casting a previous version into the ether.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making a “gen z bad” post. Just reflecting on how things are different these days, and maybe it leads to a different kind of work.
I think one of the things at play with Rand is that there are a handful of tiresome dirtbags who wave her work around like a bible. Doing so is pretty silly, and I understand why that provokes strong adversarial reactions. But to associate a reader of a text with a zealot of that text, is incorrect, I agree.
She’s not philosophically rigorous, it’s pretty plain to see. But neither is Nietzsche, and he can be a fun read if you’re in the mood for that kind of thing. I’m not putting them on the same plane as thinkers. I’m just saying it’s not a sin to read an unserious text with an open mind.
I think the most controversial aspect of her work is the notion of embracing selfishness. A taboo thing to speak aloud, in her times, and now. But, who can honestly claim they are purified of selfishness? So I can’t help but wonder if the theatrical outpouring of hatred for Rand is a way for people to disavow their own selfishness and comfort themselves with well worn axioms about the primacy of community. And avoid the difficult conversation of our relationship to selfishness and what it actually means.
Feed me downvotes.
Anyway, thanks for bringing it up OP. Cheers.
I see what you mean, but I disagree that this is a misfire or miscalculation on the church’s part. This latest development reads as another jab at gay people, from a familiar angle. It’s a reaffirmation by the church that same sex couples who love each other aren’t seen as equals in a congregation.
Nobody should be raping children. Roman Catholic priests have done this, are doing this, and the Roman Catholic church has a long and ongoing history of covering it up. If the head of the Roman Catholic church fails to stop it, they’re blameworthy.
Something a pope could easily promise, but never will:
“We acknowledge our church has a history of sexual assault against children. Our church has sought to obscure this history of abuse. This was wrong, is wrong, and needs to be corrected. Sexual assault and abuses of power in the church are unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated. The church commits to fully funding local law enforcement investigations into all allegations of sexual assault by church staff, and disclosing any information the church may have that is relevant to those investigations. All victims must be heard. With victim consent, their stories will be recorded in a centralized, public, transparent record not administrated or controlled by the church in any way.”
Any church that isn’t afraid of raking in money in envelopes, but is afraid of making a commitment like the above, is a problem, yep, I agree. There’s no excuse. Saying the pope doesn’t have the power to do this is mealymouthed and also, incorrect.
I don’t know if you’re a Catholic or not, I just want to say more generally - I don’t see how any Catholic, including the pope, has the right to opine on the finer points of official scriptures while priests are raping children and the church covers it up.
Church: since gay people should properly be seeking God’s mercy, we will now choose not to subject the gays to an exhaustive moral analysis, (that anyway if performed, would of course find them lacking). With that in mind, please feel free to approach your priest and request his blessing!
What a fucking insult.
I think this type of anthropocentrism extends to chess too actually. I’m not an expert on the subject, but I’ve heard that chess AIs are finding success doing unintuitive things like pushing a and h file pawns in openings. If, 10 years ago, some chess grandmaster was doing the same thing and finding success, I imagine they would have been seen as creative, maybe even groundbreaking.
I think the average person under-rates the sophistication of AI. Maybe as a response to the AI hype. Maybe it’s because we’re scared of AI, and it’s comforting to believe that it’s operations are trivial. I see irrationality and anger cropping up in discussions of AI that I think stem from a fundamental fear of its transformative power.
One variable that I think doesn’t get looked at seriously is class size and school funding. Ask any North American teacher, and you’ll get a grim assessment on the trajectory of schooling since the 90’s. When teachers have more students than they can handle, it’s no surprise that things get out of hand.
I’d argue that part of the solution is more teachers per student. This enables better relationships between faculty and students, and better opportunities for mentorship. Build more schools, hire more teachers, pay them well, make school a place where teachers want to be, and where kids can thrive.
But reforming the existing system is a hot potato that neither the left nor right wants to hold, so, here we are. The system itself is degraded to the point that it doesn’t have the resources to self-correct. We need vision, wisdom, funding, and leadership, to steer things in a new direction. I think that would go a long way in preventing a misguided kid from fermenting the idea that murdering people, or their own classmates, is an answer to their problems.
I don’t mean to paint school shootings as simply a rebellion against a malfunctioning system, but, we really need to look at the system and make sure it’s serving the students that have no choice but to be there.
This is interesting, and I didn’t think of it this way.
But, if the only way welfare administration can be streamlined is to give everyone money, I’d feel guilty about taking it. Wouldn’t be hard to find a way to spend $2k, sure, but knowing I didn’t truly need it to make ends meet, while other people did, & maybe would have been helped even more if they had some of my share? Ach, it wouldn’t feel right. It would be cool if the program was opt-out, and people who chose to opt out got a break in some other way, maybe on taxes that go to retirement savings. Maybe that’s a horrible idea, I don’t know.
Anyway cheers, thanks for explaining, I appreciate it.
I’m an idiot, so please jump in here if I’m getting this wrong.
Per the article, predicted program cost is $88 billion per year. Divide by Canada’s adult population of ~33 million, so, ~$2700 per person per year, minus administrative costs and bloat, so, say $2k per year.
Well, I definitely wouldn’t turn down a cheque if I qualified for it, and I don’t want to come off as complaining about a program that doesn’t even exist yet. But, $2k doesn’t sound like an amount that any person could function on. That’s less than one month’s rent almost everywhere in this country. It’s like, a 6" subway sandwich per day. Something something middle class, I seem to remember a certain federal party saying during election time. Why not simply lower taxes in a targeted way?
In what way is this amount ‘basic’? What’s the point of embarking on this whole investigative song & dance over a few extra bucks per day? What actually is the minimum amount necessary to function as an individual in this country? I think I know why the government isn’t investigating that question.
I’m not against UBI as a concept. This $88b program, if that number is correct, seems like it’s not even worth investigating. Am I crazy?
I see your point. On the other hand, chaos is a powerful terror tactic. If you’re a dissident, not knowing what angle you could be engaged from is stifling.
Also, people need to eat and drink daily. Poisoning is a horrible threat with multiple daily reminders.
To all the people in this thread saying this was probably an accident:
Imagine you’re an operator inside a totalitarian regime, and you want someone assassinated. Maybe this person isn’t themself a critical target, your objective is to instill fear in a particular department to increase compliance on a morally abhorrent skunkworks project. You already know everything about this person, of course including details of their personal life and hobbies. Hey they’re a mushroom hunter. Mycotoxins are readily available and can be lethal in small, undetectable doses. Not difficult to figure out what happens from there. Everyone who knows Vitaly knows, hey he wouldn’t pick and eat a poisonous mushroom. The message is sent to the people who you want to hear it.
I would visit but my waifu body pillow scolds me when I suggest we travel.
we’d need to make our society one that’s less hostile to having kids
You allude to some of this, but in addition, and as a precondition, we need to make our society one that’s less hostile to the people that currently exist in it.
better tools for moderation
Where have I heard that before?
They will have suits. There is a spare on the ISS, and Dragon will bring another one up. They covered that in the press conference.