People are struggling to afford every day life and we are surrounding by crazy things every day like cellphones talking to satellites in space. On any objective measure it is definitely amazing to send humans to the moon, but there are more pressing issues for most people right now.
If we as a species had more of our ducks in a row we may be able to better celebrate this as the achievement for humankind that it is.
The Artemis program has an estimated cost of 93B since 2012 [0].
As a comparison:
"Between 2020 and 2024, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion). In comparison, the total diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid budget, excluding military aid, was $356 billion."[1]
people have been struggling to afford every day life for decades. So that’s nothing new. Unless only people in the 1st world count as people lol.
You’re either emotionally consumed by the human struggle or not, it’s a personality thing - in my opinion. You’re allowed to be poor and a nerd, unless I missed the memo. I’ve met poor and wealthy people that are excited by space.
Struggling to meet our basic needs is not a recent phenomenon. It has been a part of the human condition for millenia, not just decades.
Some people think that if we can just eliminate our 'struggles' by building AI tools to do the hard thinking or robots to perform all our labor; that civilization would become some kind of utopia. I don't believe that. Progress happens when we do hard things.
I don’t think people are spending their time on more pressing issues. I think they are just are hooked on an endless stream of content that is built for addiction and is always within arms reach.
If it makes you feel better, the amount of money the United States spends on space is a very small percentage compared overall entitlement spending. There is always going to be some level of inequality, so your maxim that we should only spend money on space exploration when those problems are solved just isn't workable. The enormous amount of money the United States spends on "solving" inequality and poverty begs the question of if that's even an effective or efficient allocation of resources in the first place.
1. Why would eradicating poverty not be something to strive for?
2. The money you mentioned as basis of the comment I replied to. But if you have a cognitive disability which precludes the ability to follow a conversation's thread, I can summarize the previous state at the start of each response.
America has spent more than the equivalent of Artemis blowing up yet another middle eastern country for no good reason. I know which I'd rather get the money.
And? Is that a hurdle or something? You know homeless people are allowed to go on the internet? Smartphones? You'll find other homeless or desolate people here on HN - I won't name anyone out of respect but if you read enough comments here over time you would recognize them.
nah, it just seems like that on Twitter. We have more prosperity by far than we've ever had in history, this is a time to celebrate.
We have our 'ducks in a row' more now than in the 1960's when we went to the moon because of a cold war and nuclear annihilation / escalation.
My grandparents were born on farms with no electricity, plumbing, there was no real 'police' no social services, no healthcare, no antibiotics, 10% of children did not make it past age 1. That's in living memory.
Despite the insanity on the news, it's mostly drama, and we still have more people coming out of abject poverty than ever.
We have 'modern world problems', they are real problems for sure, but they are of a different scale entirely.
Frankly, it may never even get that much better as we may be hitting diminishing marginal returns on 'progress' - we now have to figure out how to live 'long lives and stay healthy'.
It is a fine time to be going to the moon, but we could be doing multiple productive things at the same time. It just doesn't surprise me that there are so many people that are not caring so much about this.
What about the workers that will be eventually replaced by said robots? You think they're just going to get free money to exist? Most likely they'll end up in the private prison system or in institutions while the corporations pocket all of the savings. Things are a lot more complicated than they seem I think...
I hope you're right but I think it won't be pretty in all cases. It's easy to forget the industrial revolution wasn't entirely positive for common people or for that matter the environment.
That's upside down. The industrial revolution was more beneficial for 'common people' than it was for anyone else.
The 'industrial revolution' upended the ancien regime of basically feudal order.
For the fist time, it created actual 'surplus' in the economy, and that surplus went into all sorts of things: education, leisure, the arts, medicine, travel.
The very concept of 'working people' taking a vacation - very modern idea.
Then that broke through into basic real emancipation, universal suffrage.
Then medicine, healthcare, social services etc.
All of that only happens because of elevated productivity that's not captured by a passive elite.
The game is different now for sure, but there's almost no argument that can be made for 'less surplus'.
It's almost like saying 'what if energy were free, that would be bad'. No - it would mostly be good.
The amounts of times someone invented something that was important to them and then never make any money from it only for some other entity to make tons of money from it is way too high.
Star Trek is true scifi? I always considered it to be soft scifi due to it being more about social issues in space rather than the more hard scifi about the fictional science. At least the book of Project Hail Mary is closer to hard scifi than Star Trek as they spend a lot of time describing the science. The movie rightfully skips most of this tedium in favor of a beautiful spectacle.
This is the first time I've heard of the idea of "true" scifi though.
They have different writing styles generally, but it is still pointless to call Star Trek a fantasy for the same reason why you wouldn't call Lord of the Rings a science fiction. If you have a spectrum from fantasy to science fiction with 5 being the middle then maybe Star Trek would be a 6 and Star Wars being more of a 5.
Personally I'd classify Dune to be more of a fantasy than Star Trek just because of the style it is written in being very mystical and prophetic.
For me it is a mix of things, i referenced Star Trek because author of the comment mentioned it in comparison. But for me fantasy is in the past in the "better times" and magic. SciFi for me looks into the future or alternative reality enhanced by technology.
Dune for me is SciFi, because space, spaceships, and very little magic. It is about comparison of societies rejecting and embracing technology, with little magic on top.
I was recently in Hawaii in the middle of the forest and this group nearby on the trail were blasting music from a bluetooth speaker. Whether it is compelte lack of self awareness or utter disregard for other people it is just disturbing behavior.
It seems highly unlikely that the US will magically have trains and more walk-able living because gas is unaffordable. Especially if it was a drastic and sudden shock of supply. Myself as much as anyone is not in favor of the reliance the US has on cars and non-renewable energy, but causing chaos is not the way to do it.
This is an interesting point. Supposing this sudden shock happens, wouldn't American towns, counties, and the like, run to buy buses and start providing emergency bus services all around to all those suburban areas where people couldn't afford gas anymore? Or at least, this is how I imagine a sane response would be.
There'd be a shortage of buses at first, but I also suppose it'd relatively easy to adapt current North American car manufacturing plants to start manufacturing buses.
But that's just an uninformed guess. Am I too much off base in this?
You were right in broad strokes, but buses are too much like collective action for the taste of Americans. The most optimistic outcome I can think of is that people start buying large quantities of E bikes and pressure their towns to use all that space in their stroads to accommodate bike lanes.
I went to school for industrial engineering and have worked in manufacturing the last decade or so.
Bus production would be an entire refactoring of an auto factory. Tons of equipment would need to move around, electrical conduit would need to be re-run to different places, much of the existing equipment would be too small. The equipment would need to be ordered from suppliers who already have the next couple months to years of business booked, new suppliers sourced and contracts signed, etc. On an American timeline, I can't imagine it being done in under a year if you threw money at every problem aggressively.
We did change some auto plants to manufacturing airplanes and airplane components for WWII, but there was a lot more human labor involved, manufacturing tolerances were more loose, and we had widespread support of the American public to do what we needed to make things happen. It'd be incredible to see the War Powers Act implemented to publicly fund bus transportation, but I cannot fathom that occurring with this administration.
The people in the US chose chaos. Maybe we need a harsh lesson not to do that. If we are permitted to vote this November, we'll get an indication whether or not we've learned anything.
i think they're saying the situation then would be such that americans won't be able to eat so much. that might shock your sensibilities, but remember that thousands of iranian civilians have been indiscriminately murdered these last couple weeks, by america.
This is obviously not a reversible trend. People having close proximity to one another, creating economies of scale where everyone does what they are best at instead of everyone doing everything for themselves is what allows big cities to be possible.
I'm sure all of this was inevitable as there likely hasn't ever been a time where humans were not getting together to form communities when it was beneficial to do so.
Microsoft, can you please let me remove recommendations from the start menu? Not just less recommendations. I want the category to not be displayed and taking up space.
That's hilarious, I didn't realize you couldn't turn it off. I just tried disabling all the recommendation options and it still shows the category, except now instead of recommended items, it says "to show your recent files and apps, turn them on in Settings."
This sort of thing used to bother me back when I took Windows seriously.
It's been a while since I used Windows as a daily driver, but I did oscillate between W10 and Arch for about half a year, and the Arch mentality creeped into Windows. I ended up adding a context menu to Explorer so I could paste images on my clipboard directly to a the folder I had open. I had to create keys in the Explorer portions of the registry.
If I could do that, I'm sure you can root around in the Start Menu parts of the registry and rip it out.
I used to bother with things like registry edits, until I eventually realized the technical difficulty of operating Windows has surpassed that of Linux.
Of course I still have to use Windows for work and even a few edge cases at home. But otherwise I've been quite happy since I swiched to Linux as my primary driver.
Win11debloat solves 99% of annoyances with Windows 11 in <5 minutes. I’ve used in as the first step on every Win 11 install for years. It’s mostly just a bunch of Powershell commands disabling/configuring features.
Nothing has ever reverted after an update for me, so it’s a one-and-done thing. Ironically, afterwards Windows 11 has fewer noticeable ads than my MacBook which still continually pushes Apple services/shows/etc in settings/push notifications.
The only setting that I’ve ever seen sneakily disabled in recent years is the Edge default search engine but that's out-of-scope for Win11debloat.
I know I can because I've done it on my home machine, but my work computer is restricted by IT. I can't open regedit or install most software unfortunately.
If you use an X Server and environment to launch programs inside WSL2, what part produced by Microsoft is still providing some value to that setup? Wouldn't you just exec ELF programs to be run on top of the Linux kernel and Windows would be just some useless abstraction layer between the Linux kernel and the hardware? Or would you still use some actual Windows programs? How would that work with the X Server?
There was some utility I found a few years ago that would let me start an X Server and use it to replace the main explorer process. There was some support for standard Windows apps due to the background System processes still running. I think it ended up running the Windows desktop shell as a window in and of itself.
I wanted to use a tiled window manager and my dot files for continuity purposes. The Windows apps I need to use are stuff like anyconnect and Teams.
What I heard is you would like some highly relevant ads to be at the top of your start menu for your convenience every time you want to start a program.
KDE Plasma community likes to recreate Windows environment and W11 application launchers instead of "recommendations" section have a more useful plain recently opened files. Which what Windows had not so long ago.
Is there some way to remove nuclear strikes from being a thing the AI knows about thus eliminating it as an option? Perhaps it is too important to know that your opponents could nuclear strike you.
I'd be interested to see what kind of solutions it comes up with when nuclear strikes don't exist.
Ultimately I think it will be a self correcting problem, but there is going to be an extremely long period of absolute hell. Global warming is eventually going to cause food and water scarcity on a level that will wipe out a huge percentage of the Earths population. Then the Earth will recover from there being fewer humans.
If in 3000 years we discover humans were completely wiped out to the last person I would be pretty surprised.
I agree that human extinction is very unlikely on anything like historical timespans. Maybe in a few million years, like any other species.
I do think there's a decent chance of civilizational collapse in the near to medium term. It seems like everything is getting very fragile. So much economic activity revolves around extremely sophisticated machines with many critical components that are manufactured in just a few locations, sometimes a single location. A major war could shatter that, or climate change could push us over a tipping point where those capabilities can no longer be maintained, or it might just be a cascading random breakdown due to the modern economy being so complicated.
If it happens, then I'm very pessimistic about the ability to ever come back from it. With all the easily accessible fossil fuels gone, getting industry going again is going to be a really tall order. So humanity might survive a long time, but it may consist of life the way it was in prehistory.
reply