How we’ve mischaracterized it.
I’ve noticed that in public-policy areas in which we do a crap job of risk assessment/tradeoffs, it is areas in which there are policy agendas independent of the actual issues.
How we’ve mischaracterized it.
I’ve noticed that in public-policy areas in which we do a crap job of risk assessment/tradeoffs, it is areas in which there are policy agendas independent of the actual issues.
This is interesting, and potentially useful research.
As the old saying goes, you can’t run away from a bad diet.
It turns out that it’s probably Chinese.
But people wanted to believe it because SpaceX.
I’m glad that Webb is working, but I continue to believe it was a mistake.
[Update a while later]
To clarify, I think it was a mistake to do it in the way it was done, but now that it’s operational, obviously it would be a mistake to abandon it now.
…my ass.
It’s an oldie, but a goodie.
Fact checking what sounds like a monumentally dumb flick.
What does it say about human consciousness?
That is the question at this Oxford debate this evening (in a couple hours, sorry about the short notice).
[Update toward the end of the debate]
As I’ve noted in the past, debates like this are pointless, because they are a false choice based on a false premise. We don’t have to choose between populating Mars and saving the planet; we have abundant resources for both. The false premise is that this is going to be a collective decision whose outcome will be determined by an Oxford debate. People who go to Mars will be doing so with their own money, so people on Earth who oppose it are going to have to make it illegal to prevent it. There is a word for people like that: jailers.
Are they from outer space?