"Targeted" is doing a lot of work in this headline. "Assassinated" is probably closer to the truth, given that all or most of these scientists weren't uniformed combatants.
And they didn't work on a nuclear bomb, because Iran only has a civilian nuclear program, since they were not uniformed. It's all very convenient when what something is is defined by the label on it rather that its true nature.
Not again! This kind of "learned but arrogant scientist takes on the mystery of Life" stuff is tedious, and almost always ends up trying to justify Christian creationism of one kind or the other.
OTOH SpaceX has a pretty good history of undercutting the industry on cost. If Starship full reusability works I would be very surprised if it only lowered launch costs by a factor of three. Of course it's not guaranteed to work, but clearly SpaceX's orbital datacenter plans are predicated on Starship working.
SpaceX created reusable rockets that can fly back to the launch platforms and land gracefully. Hard to blame people for becoming fans. Before them stuff like this only existed in kerbal and sci-fi.
Accepting everything they then do, forever, even when it's obviously nonsense, is what gets you called a "huge batshit crazy fanbase of boot lickers".
This "idea" is great party conversation. It's probably doing a great job of shoving around the Overton window, too (perhaps the real goal here?). It's, uh, not realistic, and anyone who is seriously "all in" on it (you're allowed to consider it and to dream, that's not the same as being all in) is not worth taking seriously no matter how much of the oxygen in the room they're using up.
"Professor Frank's research is in the general area of Theoretical Astrophysics, and in particular the hydrodynamic and magneto-hydrodynamic evolution of matter"
In other words, not a biologist, not a chemist, not a geobiologist.
My hackles go up on this kind of article because the central mystery of alive/dead is what drove all the research and all the experimentation that got us to where science is on the issue.
Beyond that, "hidden mysticism that scientists ignore" is almost always a Creationist foot in the door.
I'm not saying this guy is a Creationist, and this article is an opening for the introduction of fundamental Christian creationism, but that's the way to bet.
I thought the same thing! The way I would put it, is creationism is a cautionary tale for what concepts are most ripe for exploiting by pseudoscience. Which should be a lesson for all of us about not being fast and loose with "more is different".
My children got the US equivalent of this, which apparently started in the wake of the Columbine shooting. It was garbage. None of my kids could figure out exactly how to stand up for their peers, no practice was ever included with the exhortations.
For my part, it looked the teachers and administrators offloading the work to students. "Only you can prevent bullying" looks like "I, as a teacher, am not going to bother doing it".
This made me reflect on my own school experience and I've come to believe that some schools and some teachers tolerated bullying because the bullies were doing discipline for the teachers. Maybe not excellent discipline, but it was easy. I also believe some teachers allowed bullying to punish kids they didn't like for whatever reason, nonconformists, smartasses, or minority group. Bullies gave PE teachers plausible deniability.
Excellent effort, except the cost per kg to low earth orbit default is about 1/3 of the current cost ($1500/kg). I personally expect the launch vibration environment, and the specifics of microgravity to really raise hardware costs as well.
This one is demonstrably false. Your personal written style is what's important. Also, you have hands-on experience, which is also demonstrably more than any "AI" has. I urge you to ignore this kind of doubt or consideration.
- What kinds of posts actually worked (for learning, career, network, opportunities)?
For learning, "book report" type posts, just to solidify what I've read in my mind, maybe drive a little experimentation to ensure I've concluded correctly. I've decided not to collect any metrics so that I don't follow from behind, so that I don't end up doing clickbait. Career and network opportunities have not arisen from my blog.
My "public notebook" posts get more traffic, and I've referred back to them, but for me, these are mostly Linux sysadmin topics. I'd wager these are most valuable to people that find them for very specific problems, like seeing LLDP info from inside a WiFi access point or fixing GRUB problems on particular hardware.
- Any practical format that lowers the bar (length, cadence, themes)?
I have not discovered anything for this, alas. I use Hugo, I have a couple of little shell scripts to do monthly counts of finished vs draft articles. I try to stay at or above 5 posts a month. I'm not sure that helps lower the bar, which I interpret as "provide motivation to post".
What would I do differently? Start a blog years before I actually did so.
I'm happy to correspond, my email is in my HN profile.
I second your comment about referring back to sysadmin posts. I do this all the time! Sometimes I even find my own old blogposts in Google.
And I still get a steady trickle of grateful comments/emails in response to a tossed-off post about getting Linux scanner drivers working, many of which are genuinely moving to read.
Hey, just wanted to let you know that your honeypot data for PHP-based attacks ended up factoring in charges being dropped in two criminal cases where prosecution attempted to run with a harebrained and ludicrous theory that basically centered around some... mythical idea of how these attacks happen and how specific they can be. The criminal justice system is where lurid fantasies of how tech works end up putting people in prison for sometimes years and budget concerns meant that attorneys filled parking meters every 4 hours and we had two full time investigators in an office of 40, most with a 80-120 caseload (rolling basis). Sometimes the data one puts online can really make an impact that my guess is that it was entirely unexpected and for two people in their 20s with young kids (separate cases, in fact, although not too far apart), it really reclaimed a good chunk of their lives. Thank you for that, and I hope others would do the same, because one never knows when it'll come in handy. So many products sold to LE are basically snake oil and without data and facts, the threat is incredibly coercive. Any leverage for defense helps balancing the playing field and frankly, nobody deserves to be taken to trial based on utter BS that has merit merely because it matches the equally unfounded anxieties of people, however unsubstantiated.Thanks again!
reply