And C++/CLI uses ^ for "managed pointers" (pointer to .net objects) and % for "managed references" which means there are all-together 4 ways to declare various types of pointers which is super-fun.
Yeah but they can't do it now and not for quite a while. And even then, what is the replacement speed. And how does it compare to how fast the US can take out China space based internet.
I always assumed he would end up deploying a weapons system to space. Of course he would have to pretend to be doing something else while he builds up the capability to prevent others from becoming nervous. Something silly like colonizing Mars would work, especially if he really leans in to the eccentric billionaire trope.
The building of the infrastructure needs a red herring, the actual deployment need not be secret because by then it’s a done deed. Once deployed you’d want people to know, to avoid a Dr Strangelove situation. A veritable sword of Damocles.
If the launch capabilities are unbalanced (as they are!) then no, anti-satellite missiles aren't an option - at the moment noone can afford to launch an anti-satellite missile for every satellite that SpaceX can sustainably launch. Like, it was no problem to launch 1500+ satellites in 2022, but at the moment I don't see a credible capability for China or Russia to launch 1500+ anti-satellite missiles per year.
That kind of brinkmanship would still be attractive to a waning hegemon. I was thinking more like 250 tones worth of mini nukes which would be pretty hard to shoot down.
That would certainly destroy the US position internationally as it would be impossible to defend surreptitiously launching '250 tons worth of mini nukes' into orbit. Especially if space was not weaponized beforehand.
In fact it would very likely lead to literally every other country ganging up on the perceived villain, or at least staying on the sidelines.
So I don't see why any launch provider in the US would participate in the intentional destruction of the US?
Nah, people will get over it quite quickly. Before it happens people imagine that others will be all upset and do something, after it happens realpolitik kicks in and the world quickly adjusts to the new balance of power. Much of the world has a vested interest in the US staying the dominant hegemon and militarisation of space won't change that.
No I’m not. I actually consider it a preferable outcome to the alternative which is a great powers conflict (WWIII) that would generate untold, potentially nuclear, destruction. If I found out the US did this I would breathe a sigh of relief and I’m sure I’m not the only one. So long as China thinks they have a realistic chance of dethroning the US they’ll take that chance. If the US fails to secure a Russian defeat in Ukraine that’ll only embolden China further. Ideally I’d prefer for the US to fix its own problems and retake its seat as the undisputed economic and moral arbiter of the world but I don’t think that is likely. My biggest worry is that the US believes its own missile shield hype and picks a nuclear fight that the US then loses (hint; everyone loses).
Not sure if I understand your statement. A deployment of a new unstoppable super weapon would be an entrenchment of power not a dethronement.
Norms are violated all the time to very little consequence, sure, this would be on a whole other level but what could you do… what could anyone do… and that’s the point. I think people are over optimistic about the potential for collective action. I’m not the person who needs convincing that it’s a bad idea, that decision maker, if they even exist, is in the US government somewhere.
Certainly not, but one wouldn't need to catch every satellite launch for space weapon- one or two would be enough evidence to go public and warrant further scrutiny. There are a number of extremely savvy amateur astronomers across the world that track suspected military launches and publish their findings:
https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com
> The Soviets abandoned that project because they couldn't get their 30 engines to synchronize. Maybe this time AI (c) will help solve the problem. We will watch and see.
Worth mentioning that N-1 was severely limited by the state of electronics technology in late 60s Soviet Union. The first 3 launches of the N-1 rocket didn't even have a digital flight computer, they relied on an [analogue system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)#Engine_control_sys...).
The Space Falcon Heavy uses 27 engines and it has a perfect reliability record over five launches. Having many engines on a rocket is a solved problem and it even brings some advantages - you can still reach orbit if you lose one or two of them.
I've been using ChatGPT for language learning by asking it to explain the differences between words. The answers align with what the dictionary says but are far more elaborate and better nuanced.
It wouldn't be possible to get equivalent explanations from native speakers unless you pay them to teach.
Same. I’ve been using it quite a bit for work, but I’ve also been just playing/experimenting with it and many of my questions have come from knowing a tiny bit of Japanese and watching anime. It’s great for explaining differences between words or phrases that translate similarly.
If NASA decides to do it, not much can stop them. We use nuclear generators all the time on things like Curiosity. And lets be real the public doesn't know the difference between a tiny nuclear reactor and that.
Unless people physically show up and try to jump in front of the rocket, they can't do much.
Also, NASA and DoD are planing to test nuclear thermal rockets, and those are way scarier then small nuclear reactors.
NASA just has to move forward with a good plan with confidence and it will work just fine.
Car companies deserve to have a severely depressed valuation because they're currently being forced to transition away from internal combustion. The ICE manufacturing industry is the worst one to be in because government are determined to kill you.
Tesla doesn't have this overhang and is also growing very fast.
Car companies arguably operate in _the_ most heavily competitive and capital intensive industry on Earth. Like airlines, there's an argument that they can only manage to exist due to government subsidy. If Tesla evaporated tomorrow, Hyundai/Kia would likely eat their lunch; in a few years, GM will be ready.
It's a brutal business, which is why I think it's fascinating.
