NASA flies roughly 3 missions per year. DoD/DoW launches around 12 missions per year. NRO launches around 5 per year. That is a total of around 20 government missions per year. SpaceX launches roughly 150 missions per year, so removing state funding would only take out about 13% of their $18 billion annual revenue. 100 of those launches are Starlink, which gets funded by both commercial, private users, and government users.

It’s almost like things are fundamentally different now from “historically.” Historically, we (I’m in the launch vehicle industry) didn’t have reusable launch vehicles. Even 10 years ago the launch community was hugely skeptical of being able to successfully refurbish a rocket and maintain mission assurance.

My point is that most of the launches being performed now are not state sponsored or for scientific discovery. You are looking at it from the lens of a period when there were only two providers and only a few customers. With tons of commercial companies interested in proliferated LEO programs, there is a lot of profit in launch.

However, that STILL only gives the stock a value of around $8/share.

While you are right about academia, if you are going to say “that’s simply not true” then you need to simply have the information to prove it. If you don’t easily find the information, then it is not simply not true. You are so confident in this that you are willing to bet real money. So go find that information.

On a federal basis, you are likely correct. On a local basis, I highly disagree. Many politicians in areas that are left-leaning are putting in place data center bans. Local elections matter.

He was calling a heroic cave rescuer “pedo guy” for daring to beat him to rescuing children before his cool submarine was built… 8 years ago. And people back then weren’t surprised how awful that was, because it had already been well publicized how fucking awful he is.

I mean, possibly? A fall from tripping over your coffee table leg? Probably not. A fall from the roof of you house? Probably. A fall down a flight of stairs for an 84 year old? Probably.

The result is the first generation less cognitively capable than their parents.

Scientists: This is the first time this has actually happened based on measurable data.

You: Old people have been saying the same thing forever.

Are you seriously comparing the minor, temporary inconvenience of some people to make a point about the destruction of the planet to murdering people because they have a different skin color?

When poor people have a car accident it’s already fix it themselves, tolerate it, or replace it the vast majority of the time.

So your solution to exploiting poor people is to force the burden on the victim to just deal with it when someone else is at fault?

“I’m sorry the person who just totaled the most important part of your livelihood chose not to have insurance. Guess you just have to fix it yourself with all that free time and money you have, tolerate it, or buy a new one with all that money you have. Sucks you are poor!”

Great solution.

Well, you see, different areas of the country have different prices for things. For instance: a 1200 sqft house in Los Angeles might sell for $1.5M, while the same house might sell for $300k in Lake Minnetonka. Due to real estate costs, simple things need to be sold for more money to make up the cost of renting/buying that store space. A gallon of milk is only $2 in Danville, IN but costs $5 in Los Angeles. Gas can cost $6.39 in Los Angeles at the same time as only being $2.89 in Tuscaloosa, AL.

Proximity to refineries also makes a difference in price. So, if you see all the stations in NJ and PA charging $3.85 to $4.49, then that is going to be the rough cost for that area, even if it is much higher than in your area.

EDIT: States also charge different taxes on gas.

It actually does matter. The student could have been perfectly fine after a hard landing in a corn field that broke its landing gear and fucked up the engine. Or the student could have made a perfect landing back at the airport. Big difference in how well the student handled an extremely difficult situation.

That’s why the person said the fun fact was unrelated.

Got it, so you think it is punishing to poor people to make them pay $60-$100/mo for the privilege of driving a dangerous vehicle that can cause many thousands of dollars in damage to both cars and people, but your response to high car repair bills is for poor people to “just buy a new car.” I don’t think you have thought your cunning plan all the way through. Notice how I never brought up medical bills, only car repair bills? That’s because I agree that health insurance should be covered by the state, not private insurance. Health care is a basic human right. Driving a car is not. You talk about exploitation of poor people through making them have insurance, but you ignore that poor people can also be the victim of bad drivers. If a poor person with a $5000 car who badly needs that car to drive to work gets their car totaled by a driver without insurance, your solution is for them to “just buy a new car.” Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds? Your main argument is that this poor person should not be expected to pay $100/mo for insurance, but you think it is totally fine to ask them to pay $5000 to get a new car that they need to get to work to pay off that car?

And if you think only the wealthier drivers drive more recklessly, you should drive in a really poor part of town. You know who doesn’t give a shit whether they crash their cars? The people who drive really shitty cars. The statistics back that up, too. Wealthy areas have lower serious traffic accidents per capita than lower income areas. They also have far lower traffic fatalities per capita, but that can be down to the safety of their expensive cars. People in sports cars do tend to drive faster, but rich moms in expensive SUVs do not.

I didn’t mention the medical liability, since a modern civilized society shouldn’t need to have me worried about medical liability. I was lucky to have good insurance when I was a pedestrian hit by an uninsured driver. I wasn’t on the hook for my $60,000 in medical bills, because I had insurance. In a good society, I shouldn’t need private medical insurance to protect me if I get hit by an uninsured driver.

Now, if my new car gets totaled by a shitbox '88 Cutlass Cierra driven by a person who can barely even afford THAT car, then that’s where requiring insurance comes into play.

I used to think like you do. “How does this benefit me?”

But as a pedestrian who was hit by an uninsured driver, I can firmly tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. Driving is not a constitutional right. It’s a privilege that the state gives to you. It’s extremely dangerous for those around you, so limiting the ability to drive very dangerous vehicles to people who are financially responsible isn’t the worst idea. You might even say, “but you can just sue the person who hit you if they don’t have insurance.” The response is to think about the kind of person who can’t afford $100/mo and how much you might be able to squeeze out of them in a lawsuit over $20,000 in repair bills.

Well, yeah, that’s natural selection. The cute ones tend to have higher career salaries on average, so they are able to attract female spiders to mate with.

The headline does say “on seat” and not air temperature. That makes this more believable.

For some reason, I have a hard time believing that 150 deg temperature reading. Something about it makes me think maybe the sensor was off. Maybe it is the fact that a human would die after 10 minutes of 140 deg temps? Nah, that can’t be it. Maybe it is that the hottest ever recorded temperature in a natural environment is 130 deg? Nah, that can’t be it.

EDIT: The headline says it was “on seat” not “at his/her seat.” Dark seats can absorb more heat, so this might be believable.

As an American who has cheered his whole life for the American team and has hoped they would eventually get good enough to win the World Cup, this would make me so sad. However, as an adult who hates how corrupt FIFA is and how disgusting Trump is, I actually do want to see it. I want this World Cup to have the biggest, brightest, most obnoxious asterisk next to it. I want everyone to know how awful this one was. In previous World Cups, the refs have bent over backward to screw over the US, because most of the world hates the US. Now I want the whole world to blow up FIFA and start fresh for having the temerity to force the US to win.

You are confusing reckless with careless. A red is either because of violent/intentional play or because of reckless play. Reckless is throwing your whole body at the play knowing there is a chance you seriously hurt someone. Careless is moving naturally without knowledge that your movement might hurt someone. In this play, Balogun is moving to the side through the air and needs to put his foot down somewhere. The other player is also moving through the air to the side but slightly from behind. His foot kicks Balogun’s foot, changing its trajectory, then his foot moves to the new location where Balogun’s foot is going to land.