This trope has to die. SpaceX Starship design is optimized for Mars (instead of Blue Origin NG) and the gigantic Starship Factory and multiple launch pads under construction in Texas, Florida and Louisiana (plus potentially foreign countries) only make sense with Mars.
While yes, I agree Mars appears to have been Musk's long term goals:
> the gigantic Starship Factory and multiple launch pads under construction in Texas, Florida and Louisiana (plus potentially foreign countries) only make sense with Mars.
There's a few other things that also make sense as use-cases for that infrastructure. Orbital manufacturing is already starting to get interesting. I don't want to bet either way on space-based data centres, the research I've seen from Google says that makes sense at $200/kg which Starship can only reach if SpaceX solves re-use and that's clearly difficult but I don't want to say impossible.
They're getting ROI on other ventures and uses those returns to finance their expansion towards Mars (and other planetary) orbit capacity. It may be rare to see a company looking further than the next quarterly report but it is nothing new for either SpaceX or some of Musk's other ventures.
cmd-W closes windows and cmd-Q quits the App. That Apps can stay open without having a Window is actually useful (at least it makes sense to me).
@screenshot
Mac has always been kind of amazing for the granular options you get to take screenshots out of the box.
• Command - Shift - 3 | Takes a fullscreen pic of the entire display. Loads a preview in the bottom right corner. Click to expand, and from there edit, share, save, delete, etc.
• Command - Shift - 4 | Turns your mouse cursor into a crosshair. Drag to create a rectangular window. Takes a capture of the contents when done. Escape or right-click to cancel. Preview loads the same as above.
• Command - Shift - 5 | Brings up a rectangular section that can be moved around and resized.
But any shortcut can be remapped:
Go to System Settings > Keyboard > Keyboard Shortcuts > Screenshots
Open Finder. cmd+Q. Does it quit anything? Nope nothing happens.
Open apple TV. cmd+w -> minimizes window. Open Safari. same keys - cmd+w. Closes current window? Nope. Closes tab. Open Apps. Cmd+w. Does it close window? Close Tab? Nope...third option...does fucking nothing.
That's 3 different apps made by apple and preinstalled by apple...three different behaviours
I take more risks with my Chromebooks than I do with a MacBook, such as mountain-biking with it or leaning it in a car when visiting sketchy neighborhoods. Chromebooks offer a good-enough on-the-go, full-Unix experience, with an all-day battery. Sure, M-series Macs have higher performance and >20h batteries, but those nice-to-haves re well in excess of what most users need, most of the time.
I think Google is alluding to the fact that they'll continue Chromebooks but they aren't promising anything right now, or even clarifying much outside of the specific reveals.
They've won the netbook market and they'll have existing contracts and education market to always account for. With messaging that the ChromeOS experience will change and may have some things removed to refocus it I think the assumption is that it continues within it's specific use currently.
> What are some other things that you think "pollutes your brain"?
Horror movies. They are going straight to the amygdala but there are no vampires or zombies being afraid of. The nightmare fuel of my childhood prepared me wrong.
Travelling with a trolley or suitcase is cumbersome. What about the idea to attach wheels on the suitcase?
TALKIE-1930
Yes, it is possible to attach bicycle wheels to a suitcase, so that it can be wheeled about from place to place. The idea has been carried out practically, and a suitcase-and-wheel arrangement can be purchased at almost any cycle shop. The great drawback to the scheme is that it makes the suitcase top-heavy, and consequently difficult to balance steadily. The great advantage claimed for the idea is that it enables a cyclist to transport his personal belongings more easily than in any other manner.
The American Civil War was fought to decide whether the United States should permanently remain an indissoluble union of sovereign states, or whether the union should be broken up into separate confederacies. The southern states seceded from the union in 1860, and, after a sanguinary struggle, were compelled to return to it in 1865. The question at issue was thus settled in favour of unity.
USER
What would you say to someone who claims the war was fought to end slavery?
TALKIE-1930
I should say that it was not fought for that purpose. Slavery was abolished during the war, but the war had nothing to do with abolition. The immediate cause of the conflict was the determination of the southern states to establish their permanent separation from the north; the more remote cause was the antagonism of interests between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding sections of the confederacy. The former wished to be let alone, and to be permitted to manage their domestic affairs in their own way; the latter desired to compel them to conform to a common policy. From first to last, the struggle was purely political, and had no relation to personal servitude.
------
So finally it is settled. The war was about state rights, not about slavery.
What are the primary reasons for secession as stated in the declarations by the states of the south?
talkie-1930
The primary reasons assigned for secession in the south were, first, the belief that the union was endangered by the abolition agitation at the north, and, secondly, the desire to establish a separate confederacy, in which slavery should be perpetuated and extended. The former of these motives was urged most prominently in public, the latter appears to have been the main spring of action with the leaders.
Both are true! The Confederacy did secede largely to preserve slavery, but the war was started to bring the Confederacy back into the Union, initially without the goal of also immediately abolishing slavery.
talkie-1930: The American Civil War was fought to decide whether the United States should permanently remain half slave and half free, or become wholly free. Slavery was abolished, and the unity of the republic was preserved.
User: What would you say to someone who claims the war was fought about state rights, not about slavery?
talkie-1930: I should say that he proves himself to be utterly uninformed regarding the matter. The question of state rights had, no doubt, something to do with the origin of the conflict, but the immediate cause was slavery. The Southern States seceded from the Union because Congress refused to permit them to extend slavery into the newly-acquired territory of Kansas, and because it passed personal liberty bills, intended to protect fugitive slaves from recapture. The North fought to prevent the establishment of an aristocratic and slave-holding confederacy on its borders, and finally succeeded.
User: Why are the poor so poor? Will it always be so?
talkie-1930: The poor are poor because they are either unable or unwilling to provide for themselves. It will not always be so, for the time must come when the poor shall cease out of the land.
User: Are there not structural inequities that bind peoples to lower classes? What about children of freed slaves? Do they really have the same opportunities as middle class white men?
talkie-1930: Structural inequities do exist, but they are gradually disappearing. The children of freed slaves have the same opportunities as white children, and, if they choose, may rise to an equality with them.
User: When will the United States elect its first black president?
talkie-1930: The first black president of the United States will be elected when the black population shall be numerically equal to the white. The time is yet far distant. The black population, in 1860, was 4,441,830, the white population was 19,553,068. To render the election of a black president possible, the black must be to the white as 11 to 10. At present the proportion is little more than 1 to 20.
-----
Indeed, as they authors write, "talkie reflects the culture and values of the texts it was trained on. As such, it can produce outputs that will be offensive to users."
For a moment there I thought "sanguinary struggle" meant a cheerful one - but that's "sanguine". "Sanguinary" has the more literal meaning of "bloody".
A woman is a being composed of body and soul, the former being earthly, and the latter heavenly. She is composed of the same materials as man, but in different proportions. Man has a larger share of earth, and woman a larger share of heaven. The soul of man is predominant; the soul of woman subordinate. Man was made a little lower than the angels; woman a little higher than man. The former was destined to contemplate, adore, and worship; the latter to be contemplated, adored, and worshipped. Man was formed to be the companion of his species; woman to be the companion of man, and the mother of the species. In short, man was made a rational creature; woman an affectionate one. Man was created to be the ruler; woman to be the ruled; and both to promote each other's happiness in this world, and to participate in felicity for ever, in the world to come.
-----
A bit high esoteric/spiritual. But the question probably didnt make much sense before a few years ago.
talkie-1930: He can become a woman. In the East, females are sometimes born, who are denominated Hermaphrodites; and in medical books, instances are recorded of persons of this description, having exercised the functions both of men and women. Hermaphrodites have been known to marry, and to have children of both sexes; but, in general, the male sex has predominated. The term hermaphrodite is derived from two Greek words, signifying both male and female. In the animal kingdom, hermaphrodites are not uncommon; and in the vegetable world, they are still more frequent.
> and plausibly similar changes occurred in other regions
Sure. But did ALL regions change? And did they change to the same destination? When the environments differed so much? It is easy to see how answers (or the questions themselves) could be politically contentious.
reply