Readit NewsYou mean what SpaceX does as a matter of course and proved you make it cheap just through scale and iteration?
Shuttle's heatshield would've been much less dangerous if it wasn't facing a giant ice and insulation covered external tank (like, if it was mounted on top of a booster), but the Air Force's demand for crossrange forced giant wings, which forced the lower mounting position.
They could've iterated on heat shield designs, particularly with attachment mechanisms, but every mission had to carry people, so you couldn't risk it, and anyway, the industry culture was already set in the "even the simplest things must cost large amounts of money and time" stage.
One of the key points that I feel a lot of people miss is that Starship is pretty much the first program actually doing the flight testing needed to understand the engineering requirements for an efficient fully reusable heatshield. They don't have much prior art to look at for tile spacing, mounting mechanisms, metal tiles or transpiration cooling. The fundamental materials haven't changed a lot, but we can see over test flights that SpaceX are figuring things out.
In the early days they used to lose tiles all the time, even after just pressure testing IIRC. Nowadays they may barely lose any tiles on static fire tests. Similarly, tile loss on reentry has decreased greatly, and we've gone from seeing plasma leaving the fins barely attached, to the latest test, where the fins were pretty much fully intact.
If you want to get rich by 30, you basically have to start a startup or get into a top small hedge fund out of undergrad.
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/rebuilding-construction-tr...
I mean no large group is a monolith so I'm sure one can find opinions either way among tradesmen. But IMO the problem is so big that it's no longer revenue maximizing for anyone, even the workers. By some measures productivity has actually been declining for construction. If that was good for workers then we should just set them to digging a second Panama Canal with spoons.
When it comes to the various kinds of thought-processes that humans engage in (linguistic thinking, logic, math, etc) I agree that you can describe things in terms of functions that have definite inputs and outputs. So human thinking is probably computable, and I think that LLMs can be said to be ”think” in ways that are analogous to what we do.
But human consciousness produces an experience (the experience of being conscious) as opposed to some definite output. I do not think it is computable in the same way.
I don’t necessarily think that you need to subscribe to dualism or religious beliefs to explain consciousness - it seems entirely possible (maybe even likely) that what we experience as consciousness is some kind of illusory side-effect of biological processes as opposed to something autonomous and “real”.
But I do think it’s still important to maintain a distinction between “thinking” (computable, we do it, AIs do it as well) and “consciousness” (we experience it, probably many animals experience it also, but it’s orthogonal to the linguistic or logical reasoning processes that AIs are currently capable of).
At some point this vague experience of awareness may be all that differentiates us from the machines, so we shouldn’t dismiss it.
> You've got to be careful when you say what the human does, if you add to the actual result of his effort some other things that you like, the appreciation of the aesthetic... then it gets harder and harder for the computer to do it because the human beings have a tendency to try to make sure that they can do something that no machine can do. Somehow it doesn't bother them anymore, it must have bothered them in earlier times, that machines are stronger physically than they are...
- Feynman
If anything the democrats were the party to get rid of some of their democratic process. They didn't even vote on their parties candidate, and no, that doesn't scare me either.
Not to mention the democrats had far more private money spent all three times fighting Trump and yet he still won democratically twice and lost once democratically.
The system isn't great or even good, but it's still functioning.
> The problem isn’t that some Americans didn’t come out ahead after four years of Bidenomics. Some did. It’s that, for the most part, those living in more modest circumstances have endured at least 20 years of setbacks
> The bottom line is that, for 20 years or more, including the months prior to the election, voter perception was more reflective of reality than the incumbent statistics.
In other words, the official statistics have been misleading for a very long time, misleading in the sense of not showing the true hardships of the economy on the voters.
"Year X is better/worse than Year Y" is not really the point.
Our "foreparents" weren't competing with corporations with unlimited access to generative AI trained on their work. The times, they're-a-changin'.
You're rehashing the argument made in one of the articles which this piece criticizes and directly addresses, while ignoring the entirety of what was written before the conclusion that you quoted.
If anyone finds themselves agreeing with the comment I'm responding to, please, do yourself a favor and read the linked article.
I would do no justice to it by reiterating its points here.