Per 1 billion vehicle-km the US has 6.9 deaths and the Netherlands has 4.7 deaths. That’s obviously better much but I wouldn’t call it “problem solved”.
My guess is better road design means less miles driven by cars (as opposed to other, safer vehicles) and therefore fewer accidents overall, even if car crash statistics remain the same.
1. Bazel is still not widely used outside of massive monorepos. (because its such a pain to use)
2. Solar power will surpass wind power in the US to become the 4th largest source of electricity. https://eia.languagelatte.com/
3. Starship begins launching real payloads, achieves reusability of the upper stage, and successfully does a ship to ship fuel transfer.
4. Tesla stock has a major correction (>20%) as it becomes increasingly clear that Waymo, Zoox, AVRide, and various Chinese companies are significantly ahead in AV technology. And as it becomes clear that Optimus is a sham.
Chinese will always be irrelevant to the US car market as both political parties will block chinese vehicle sales on (valid) national security grounds.
Uber and Lyft stocks crash as markets realise the game is up - nobody can compete with Tesla who can afford to burn excess spare factory capacity driving cars directly off the line to start picking up passengers. Waymo might have good AI but can't possibly compete with Teslas unit economics.
> 20% is not a major correction. It just recently doubled. Even at price before it doubled wasn't considered undervalued, so anything < 66% down is not a major correction.
I am always intrigued by new SRS systems, though sadly most are just "simplified" Anki clones. I have always been tempted to throw my hat into the ring.
The biggest area for improvement is probably deck collaboration. Most SRS proponents often state that its bets to make cards yourself because the act of making the cards is a key part of the learning process. I don't disagree, but part of the reason that making cards your self is recommended is because the shared decks are, on average, terrible.
After that I would like to see more built in support for non front/back or cloze cards. There are a lot of other card types that you can make, but are difficult or impractical to do in anki. Things like "slow" cards, one sided cards, code/music/math/text cards. These can all be done in anki, but it's a pain.
Then support for card order/hierarchy/prerequisite an and encompassing graphs like what MathAcademy does.
And lastly, a web first experience. Anki is offline/local first. That has the benefit that you are always safe from being rug pulled. But there are a lot of places (like work) where local first does not work well.
Know personally in real life? No. But there are plenty of examples of people using Anki/SRS tools for interesting things outside of school or 2nd language. I’m firmly in the camp that SRS is widely underrated and underused for working adults.
Some examples would be Michael Nielsen, Gwern Branwen, Andy Matuschak and u/SigmaX (reddit - not sure his real name)
They'll always be "underrated" and underused because they're so damn unenjoyable.
Sure, we all need to study and learn things in life here or there, but the flashcardification of the process makes it boring and painful.
From my own personal experience trying it, I find the process to be too far removed from the practice of accomplishing what you are setting out to learn to do. An analogy might be like memorizing a recipe by using Anki cards and not physically cooking it versus doing cooking it a bunch of times without deliberately trying to memorize the recipe. For me, the latter is far more effective because you have your 6 senses of mnemonics to memorize what you are doing. I may not remember that I need 2 cups of flour, but I remember that I scooped my purple flour scoop twice and that the white contents felt powdery like flour and grainy like sugar. Even if I forgot the recipe my body would have smelled, seen, touched, weighed the material and I have all these physical clues to work with.
Learning by doing, experiencing, immersing is more of a "repetition that you don't even know you're doing" while Anki/SRS has the feeling of a chore and an obligation.
I always had the impression that the propellant transfer was the harder question than the heat shield. They have done a transfer demo from one internal tank to another, but they still need to test from one ship to another ship.
I only casually follow the news from r/spacex, but prop transfer is what I see generate the most discussion. It’s a hard requirement for all deep space missions. Where the heat shield could be refurbished between launches.
The heat shield may be a "we don't know how to do the physics" problem, where propellant transfer is a "complex integration of well understood components" problem. If the heat shield requires per launch refurbishment it cripples the colonization dream.
Deep space missions yes. But Starlink isn't deep space - and neither is the vast majority of commercial payloads.
Propellant transfer is relevant because it's vital for sending entire Starships to Moon and Mars - which are the exciting Starship missions. This includes Artemis. But commercially? Artemis contract isn't even a large part of SpaceX's revenue.
Why do you think transfer of propellant is so difficult? We do propellant transfer all the time in space. The only real different is that the liquid is colder and Starship is just plane bigger.
But we pipe around cold stuff in space internal to space ships already quite often.
What is the fundamental limitation that you worried about?
I would say the head-shield is far harder an an unsolved problem, specially with re-use. Refurbish is not economically viable, specially not after 1 launch. That would be against every design goal of Starship. It has never been demonstrated in a practical fashion.
Propellant transfer, with cryogenic propellants, can be done using cryocoolers. It's not too hard of a problem. Besides, Starship only needs prop transfer for Moon and Mars missions, but the later are fantasy and the former probably isn't going to happen either, and actually just regular LEO launches with a fully reusable rocket is where most of the money is anyway.
The heat shield is a huge problem though. Without the heat shield, there's simply no way SpaceX can use Starship to make money.
Heat shield reuse is a big deal for orbital refueling too, because it requires 12+ launches in a short time frame. If you don't have heat shield reuse then you need 12+ Starships and 12+ refurbishments per mission.
> Once Sealand actually started angering people, the Royal Navy showed up and that was that.
What did the royal navy do? There is no mention of the UK using force against sealand in either the Wikipedia page or this BBC article about sealand. (Though obviously the royal navy could retake sealand if they wanted)
A well thought out question definitely counts. (Though the majority of my questions to chatGPT certainly are below that threshold)
I’m reminded of this article about writing good Anki cards. The act of writing a good question is at least as important, if not more so, than the spaced repetition part.
Russia is saying the damage will be repaired “soon”. I’ve seen some other (potentially biased) sources saying it will closer to a year or two to fix.
Back when the US was reliant on Russia to get to the ISS the US paid 60 to 90 million dollars per seat. I wonder if the US will charge the same now. Would Russia pay that much? Their space agency seems strapped for cash lately.
> It's hard to lose a contest you won 60 years prior...
If you pick a random person off the street and ask them who discovered the Americas will they answer 1. Leif Erikson, 2. Indigenous peoples or 3. Christopher Columbus? If you ask people who invented the smartphone will they say Apple or some other company?
It’s absolutely possible to lose a race you had previously won.
Or indeed, ask them who won the space race, because by most measures, that was the Soviets too.
Soviets achieved:
- First artificial Orbit ( Sputnik )
- First animal to orbit ( Laika )
- First Man to orbit ( Yuri Gagarin )
- First Woman to orbit (Valentina Tereshkova )
- First EVA ( Alexei Leonov )
- First moon landing ( Luna 9 )
- First landing on another planet ( Venera 8 )
Many of these years before the USA achieved the equivalent. The first female US astronaut wasn't until the mid 1980's.
The Americans were at one point beat so bad that they invented their own game that only they were playing.
Yes, that spurred their entire economy and the boosted scientific investment paved the way for the decades of dominance since, and that should be rightly celebrated, but the idea that the USA "Won the space race" because of the moon landing is Hollywood nonsense.
They are still jerking on these 50+ years old achievements, without having new ones. "Space race" didn't stop after Venera landing, and soviets/russians are thing of the past now. Aside of useless ISS trips, they have no relevance in space anymore.
> "Won the space race" because of the moon landing is Hollywood nonsense.
"Won the space race" because they were first at the very beginning is a nonsense too. Following this logic, China won rocket race because they invented first rockets centuries ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
(Wikipedia links to itf-oecd.org/ where those numbers come From)
reply