>Can you imagine if people who manufacture components for industrial designs behaved like Google does? "We have these subway trains with busted brakes, but it turns out that they were manufactured by Google and they dropped the project two years ago. I guess we have to buy new trains then..."
I can imagine it. It happens every day.
In an industrial setting it is not uncommon to need a part but the stock version of it is not available. It could be that the manufacturer switched from making cooling tower components to fly swatters. Or, it could be that the system you're maintaining is a hundred years old.
You might find a 3rd party replacement part from China. If not, you try to build it from generic components (everyone uses the same bearings, o-rings, springs, etc). If that fails you find a company who sells a similar product and give them your specifications. Finally, failing all other means, you pay a machine shop (or a foundry if you're making the cast iron part of the braking system) to build your part. Anything that has already been built can be built again.
If you want security in terms of products you are buying, you get a warranty. There are laws that enforce warranties. So you get a warranty, and when its going to expire you get an extension, and when you cant renew anymore you plan to replace that product.
The same is true of utility companies. If you are worried about fly by night fiber companies, you should require a lengthy advanced notice-- perhaps a year or two. And if Google blesses some other city instead of yours because you wanted the warranty, then you let it go.
The only reputation that Google has left in my head right now is that the thing that you rely upon can be gone overnight. I'm not using it for anything remotely critical.
Heck, I can't even get some of my techy friends to drop hangouts even though google's retiring it. One of them even said "I'm going towait to see what google's next product is", you mean allo? Duo? What's possibly next that could be worth it? Why would you want to stick with that treatment?
Hi, I just replied to the original comment but no there is no Hawaiian tribe. Many (most?) Hawaiians dont want to be a recognized tribe because they consider themselves a nation within a nation.
Hawaii is in a unique position because there are still plenty of native Hawaiians around. They arent a native tribe recognized by the U.S. government and some number (most in my mind) dont want to be. Because the overthrow of the last government of the Kingdom of Hawaii was done under shady conditions (basically the sugar barons formed a provisional government and then told the U.S. that they'd like to become a part of the U.S. They did this to join the free trade area that U.S. states enjoy to lower their shipping costs. They had actually tried this once before and then President Grover Cleveland shut them down. He stated that Hawaii had an existing government and seemed to have popular support of the people. But later they tried again and that time the U.S. agreed to annex Hawaii. It was operated essentially as a colony from then on until the 1950's.
So Hawaii is a normal U.S. state. It has state legislation. It obeys federal laws. Except, occasionally native Hawaiians will stand up about some issue. And when that happens, sometimes everyone else will bend toward their perspective. A lot of normal people do so out of respect for native Hawaiians. Politicians do it because it is politically tough to stand in opposition of Hawaiians. As a side note, there are very few republicans in Hawaii. There are none in the state legislature or U.S. representatives. There are a growing number of republicans that grow from the strong military presence.
The thing is, when Hawaiians protest its hard to figure out who or how many they represent. Because there is no official Hawaiian government. (There is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). But dont even get me started. lol) So no one can say "Hawaiians dont want the thirty meter telescope (TMT)". You can only say, "those people protesting over there dont want the TMT".
My instinct is that a large amount of this particular protest springs forth from the students of the University of Hawaii. When people started talking about the telescope students started to organize, hold meetings, and invite speakers. At one point the students built an ahu which is a an altar built out of stones right in the main field when you come upon the university, next to the president's office.
The University is probably too scared to remove it. Months later the students planted trees around it. It'll be there forever. Some say that native Hawaiians came to some professors at the University and asked them to help organize but that the core of the anti-telescope movement are native Hawaiians. Its impossible to say. There has never been any kind of survey or vote of native Hawaiians- which itself would be impossible as there is no real registry of native Hawaiians.
This was a long way to say, the only reason this went court was because of protest that, at least in part, included some native Hawaiians. No matter what the court decides, nothing is certain. It could still be slowed for years or indefinitely. If Hawaiians block the one road up the mountain, and are willing to get arrested on a daily basis, its hard to imagine that any politician would back the continued construction.
>The thing is, when Hawaiians protest its hard to figure out who or how many they represent. Because there is no official Hawaiian government. (There is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). But dont even get me started. lol) So no one can say "Hawaiians dont want the thirty meter telescope (TMT)". You can only say, "those people protesting over there dont want the TMT".
>My instinct is that a large amount of this particular protest springs forth from the students of the University of Hawaii.
You're partially right. The protests are fueled largely by sovereignty activists, some of whom are trained as sovereignty activists in the University of Hawaii School of Hawaiian knowledge, which is sort of a de facto sovereignty training camp. The dean is a vocal sovereignty activist.
> If Hawaiians block the one road up the mountain, and are willing to get arrested on a daily basis, its hard to imagine that any politician would back the continued construction.
Not true. This is exactly what happened with the solar telescope on Maui, and for the exact same reasons. The protesters were arrested in the streets and construction continued. There has been no decrease in support.
Your point about there being no universally recognized Native Hawaiian representative organization is a very good one. There's no group or finite set of groups, that the TMT could reach an agreement with (by providing scholarships, environmental offsets, rent, etc.) and then be free from the protests. Three people getting angry in a Hilo coffee shop can stop construction of the TMT.
It just depends. If you dont have cable and can only receive one broadcast channel its probably PBS. If you keep the younger ones away from electronics they will watch PBS Kids and love it.
Once they get older and they get their hands on electronics they would much rather watch the seizure inducing fast cut shows on disney or nickelodeon because those shows are designed to appeal to kids instead of teaching them something.
The worst thing (IMO) though is youtube. They'll watch those horrible toy channels of parents pimping out their kids or the creepy ones where the adults pretend to be children playing with the toys. Hundreds of hours of toy commercials.
Then when they get a little older they start watching youtubers doing "challenges". And before you know it they are watching logan paul ching-chong-ping-pong his way around asia or watching fortnite on Twitch.
And at that point, your kid is ready to graduate to uninformed barely-literate ignorant citizen with no attention span and no ability to think critically.
I mean YouTube is bad but nothing can compete with the existential horror of Barney or the Teletubbies. Again again! three minute video loops to infinity
Plenty of my fave 80s cartoons were basically extended toy commercials. He-Man, Voltron...
It was interesting to watch those in eastern Europe. I knew he-man but never saw any commercial. They'd be wasted time as well, because you couldn't buy those toys anyway, so only the show itself remained.
I actually haven't learned about the toy part of those shows until my 20s.
That is fascinating. The lends of other people's experiences.
Although living in a rural area in the U.S. there were a lot of shows I was aware of but never really got to see all that much because they were on cable and having only a handful channels limited options. He-man being one of them. But it is interesting how much a kid picks up with those shows with just the most minimal amount of content.
PBS has new shows that seem pretty good, like Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood (cartoon spin-off of Mr. Rogers), Martha Speaks, Word Girl, Dinosaur Train. Others skew more toward the Nick Jr. school of shows, like Wild Krats, Curious George, etc.
Ironically it is kind of hard to find old school Sesame Street on PBS. It's not even really a PBS show anymore; its new episodes air first on HBO, which sends a shiver down my spine just to type.
We don't have cable, but basically never turn on the TV for the kids. All "TV time" for my kids starts with loading PBSKids.org or NickJr on the laptop. The content is all age-appropriate and the sites are navigable by a kid. (NickJr is way better in this regard.)
The only time my kids see YouTube is if I load up a specific video for them--then I close it. You're 100% right that it's not a safe place to let kids surf around.
YouTube is what you make of it. There is a huge amount of excellent content for kids. Two examples of channels I'll let my six year old daughter watch just about any time she asks are SciShow Kids and Cosmic Kids Yoga. There are plenty of others, but those are her current favorites.
It's definitely important to curate what kids are watching, but that's true of any medium.
Richard Stanton and John Volanthen are the real deal. People should read their wikipedia pages. Also, watching cave diving videos... even on their best day, when they're having a great time, it looks absolutely horrifying. lol
Did anyone else notice that the bottom two windows are not different cameras on different boosters? The guy even told us, "I know they look similar but they're different". Nope, they are the same. Watch how you can see two pads and they both land on the pad on the right. And you can see the second booster burning in the same orientation. The roads leading to the pads also make it easy to notice.
Or the part where he was about to spill the beans about the center core, but was quickly told to STFU in his earbud so they could delay the news of any failure until after the primary news cycle burned through the tandem landing miracle fuel.
I hope one day to be as good at both engineering and PR as SpaceX is.
For this launch the live stream editors probably had 4x the normal amount of feeds to switch, so I’ll forgive them for a couple editing mishaps. I’m guessing they don’t have the same setup as would be at something like the Super Bowl... at least not yet :)
They also failed to show the fairing separation view when the music started and repeated that shot after the stream was essentially over. I guess a lot of things were just new and not quite like normal F9 launches (where presentation has been largely flawless for a while now).
Nah, the two feeds were identical including a portion of the other booster’s rocket plume in the top left. The two pads are different colours, both feeds showed the rocket landing on the lighter pad.
Hopefully we will get a corrected version for the official movie!
They are slightly different, I suspect it's for creating 3d illusion. If you cross your eyes and overlap the two images you will see the landing in 3d.
Yes. This is exactly what is going on. In the same time period described the power dinosaurs (Google autocorrected companies to "dinosaurs" but it kinda fits in more than one way so I'm keeping it) have implemented polices to slow down adoption of PV claiming they can't build the infrastructure fast enough to hold the growth but all the while just hoping to figure out a way to remain relevant while not embracing any kind of change.
I can imagine it. It happens every day.
In an industrial setting it is not uncommon to need a part but the stock version of it is not available. It could be that the manufacturer switched from making cooling tower components to fly swatters. Or, it could be that the system you're maintaining is a hundred years old.
You might find a 3rd party replacement part from China. If not, you try to build it from generic components (everyone uses the same bearings, o-rings, springs, etc). If that fails you find a company who sells a similar product and give them your specifications. Finally, failing all other means, you pay a machine shop (or a foundry if you're making the cast iron part of the braking system) to build your part. Anything that has already been built can be built again.
If you want security in terms of products you are buying, you get a warranty. There are laws that enforce warranties. So you get a warranty, and when its going to expire you get an extension, and when you cant renew anymore you plan to replace that product.
The same is true of utility companies. If you are worried about fly by night fiber companies, you should require a lengthy advanced notice-- perhaps a year or two. And if Google blesses some other city instead of yours because you wanted the warranty, then you let it go.