A yes, we most protect others from being exposed to information that might make them vote differently from what we want. After all, democracy is all about getting the votes we want, right?
The cynical in me doesnt see that as the main problem, lack of diversity in thought and debate is already an issue, censorship laws about what subjects and what opinions are correct is an issue that will be exacerbated.
To save the democracies you need, a better population who votes in competently and informed, as well as a public debate that is honest and doesnt decry any deviation from the standard as fascism.
Far-right populism only exists in coutries where debate is not honest and pragmatic enough, and avoided in countries like Denmark because population and government are in a tight loop where each feels heard by the other.
You can only have a democracy when the vote actually matters. In a representative democracy where representatives are not held accountable to their campaign promises that can hardly be said to be the case.
So creating cheap, reusable giant rockets is standing in the way of human progress? Being able to use neural links to restore sight to the blind is standing in the way?
Maybe not, but one can always converse curiously and ask them what they meant. It's nicer to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
Oh really? If you, too, were being sarcastic, you have no business raising "my replies ended in question marks" as a defense, because you weren't actually asking a question, you were making a claim, and the question mark is purely decorative. That is also bad faith discussion. Which is really the core problem with the whole "just asking questions" thing, you start with ambiguous question marks, and retreat to whichever meaning is tactically expedient when challenged.
Meanwhile, I have no problem admitting that my question mark was decorative, and acknowledging my claim that you are engaging in bad faith discussion.
The Saturn V was simply a scaled up V2. The critical components were all there:
1. boundary layer cooling
2. pre-heating fuel and cooling the nozzle by pushing the fuel through tubes in the nozzle
3. baffles to prevent pogo-ing
4. turbo fuel pumps
5. supersonic airframe
6. guidance system (although primitive)
The V2 was an ineffective military weapon that did little damage - because its guidance system was too primitive to be able to hit a target. Hitler also poured enormous resources into the V2 program, shifted away from producing weapons that were effective.
In the real world we so far just managed to keep space free of military weapons not because they are expensive, but because of treaties. I just don't expect those to last much longer.
And frankly I never looked into the concept, but why do you think, a space base tungsten penetrator would be way more expensive, than a nuke on a missile?
The idea as proposed in various places is a very large multi-ton vehicle. He chose to focus on trivia. Pretty common for Elon fans.
Humans are pretty clever at devising ways to kill each other. The Russians put a garbage can of concrete on a ersatz ballistic missile on a terror strike against Ukraine. Like you said, these things don’t exist because of treaties.
Elon Musk is promoting progress only when he has something to gain from it (in economical terms or in terms of his image), but has no qualms wrecking progress, butchering indiscriminately and hurting prople when it comes to his personal grievances. This is further aggravated by his mercurial and egomaniacal personality, and the false reality build on conspiracies he surrounds himself in.
Hapazardly and chaotically dismantling the US public sector on some ideological crusade was not advancing human progress. Netiher was turning Twitter into some farcical shell of its former self, owned by Saudi Arabia. Neither was sabotaging projects such as high-speed rail systems purely out of spite.
> Musk told me that the idea originated out of his hatred for California’s proposed high-speed rail system. … At the time, it seemed that Musk had dished out the Hyperloop proposal just to make the public and legislators rethink the high-speed train. He didn’t actually intend to build the thing. … With any luck, the high-speed rail would be canceled. Musk said as much to me during a series of e-mails and phone calls leading up to the announcement.
Any good he has produced along the way (that mitigates the damage he is causing) is only a means to an end for him, and he would have no hesitations burning it all to the ground the moment it suites him. If everyone acted like him humanity would be doomed, not quickly progressing toward some technological utopia.
Or, as his acquaintance Sam Altman put it: "Elon desperately wants the world to be saved. But only if he can be the one to save it."
I must have forgotten that Elon actually is the original founder of Tesla and not a phony. At best he's their money guy.
Do you think Elon knows a single thing about rockets? Do you actually think he has literally anything to do with them? He isn't even capable of forming a sentence without stuttering, much less actually doing literally anything at all. Keep defending your pedophiles, bro. I'm sure in 10 years you'll be glad we have a written record of your stance.
Yes , he does. And making fun of people who stutter isn’t a good look.
I will take the word of the world’s foremost rocket engine engineer who was in the room with Musk a lot of times, to someone posting in ignorance on the Internet.
Is asking for invites to Epstein's island a good look? I don't think I'll take advice on decorum from you.
It's really sad you would take the word of paid-off ego glazers and insult your own intelligence by buying into the super-genius bullshit Elon wants you to.
The truth is pretty clear: he's just a sex fiend and likely pedophile who pays people to say nice things about him. It is clear as day that anyone not on his payroll has no love for him whatsoever.
It's not what his businesses are doing, it is what he says and what he spreads to a tech bro disciple that spreads this shit far away, working with technologies like AI at the forefront, ending up setting us back in our progress & history.
Same applies to Thiel, Zuckerberg and whoever not. Read up on Thiel & Trump, then come back.
But to understand the solution from someone else, you would have to apply your mind to understand the problem yourself. Transferring the hard work of thinking to GPT will rob you of the attention you will need to understand the subject matter fully. You will be missing insights that would be applicable to your problem. This is the biggest danger of brain rot.
Without the engagement on the material you are studying you will not have the context to know and therefore focus on the larger problem. Deep immersion in the material allows you to make the connections. With AI spoon feeding you will not have that immersion.
He asked why he can't use nukes in 2016. Trump is pro raw power, pro war, always was, always will be. "We didn't vote for this" - all Germans 1945. SPOILER ALERT: They did, it was all in "Mein Kampf".
I hate it when everyone says "Nazi Germany" instead of just "Germany".
Trump gave one of the biggest drug dealers ever a pardon as well as the Silk Road guy. Time to sanitise where you get your news, you seem to be eating all the propaganda.
reply