domain:amphobian.info
It only connects all the major cities of the world if
- It can fly supersonic over land. At the moment the discussions between Boom and the Trump admin are on the basis that they will only be able to fly supersonic over CONUS if the boom doesn't reach the ground, which means slowing down to Mach 1.3 and increased fuel consumption. The politics of Concorde was that countries that didn't build it were disinclined to be generous about letting it fly in their airspace, and Boom will face the same problem with countries that are not the USA.
- They release a plane with long enough range for trans-Pacific routes. (Overture has a planned range of 4250nm and LAX-Tokyo is 4768)
- The economics of an all-business class service (which requires 80% occupancy, mostly at full-fare, to break even) work out on enough routes. Apart from a long history of failed all-premium operations, the big problem they face here is the lower supersonic premium on eastbound flights - a 4-hour supersonic TATL is too short to work as a night flight but doing it as a daytime flight means that you lose 5/6 hours work time to the time change. A flat bed on a subsonic night flight offers a lot of people a better value proposition for their $3500. Concorde had to sell cheap eastbound tickets as a bucket list experience to fill the plane.
Right now the only city pair which has supported an all-premium flight sustainably is London-NYC*, and it currently doesn't. The British Airways Babybus is a pretty direct comparator to what Boom would be offering (all-premium service marketed to full-fare business travellers that offered significant time savings by running from London City and pre-clearing US immigration while refueling in Shannon), and the economics was marginal. (It was cancelled during the pandemic and never reinstated). As well as the problems selling enough full-fare business class tickets to keep the plane flying, there is the issue that most of the airports that might welcome an all-premium flight are slot-constrained, and a 777 makes more money out of the slot than a small all-premium flight.
You need fat point-to-point routes to make Boom work, which are long enough for supersonic flight to be worth it, short enough to be within range, and mostly over water. On day 1 that means the premium trans-Atlantic city pairs only. Business travellers won't use a less-than-daily service, and the whole point of flying supersonic is lost if you end up with a layover when a non-stop subsonic flight was available.
It's a great product (assuming they can actually build the Symphony engine, which I rate as a 70% shot) and if they do sell a $7000 LHR-JFK return I will probably fly it. But "Concorde at a third to half the price" gets you regular supersonic service on 10-20 city pairs vs 1 - not a transformation of the airline industry similar to the 707 or the 747. Boom are not proposing to change the physics of supersonic flight or the economics of the airline industry.
* London-NYC is comfortably the busiest long-haul city pair, with about 40% more seats than London-Dubai in 2nd place (overflies densely-populated Europe so probably not supersonic-friendly) and almost double number 3(Paris-NYC). Number 4 is London-LA (out of Overture range if they have to slow down over land) and number 5 is Singapore-Melbourne (dependent on Australian government permission to make sonic booms over the Outback). Tokyo-Singapore and Seoul-Singapore would be perfect supersonic routes if they were fat enough to support daily service, which appears to be marginal.
TeknOShEeP
26m ago
Metalworking? No- despite the popular misconception water and ice are considerably more compressible than essentially all metals. You'd probably want something more along the lines of Dexpan, which when mixed with water can (according to the tech specs) provide 18 ksi of compressive force, which might be enough to form some softer metals like copper or aluminum.
hydroacetylene
26m ago
Yes
See, for example, this reddit explanation of the unique vertical level design of DS1. Imo none of the other entries, including ER, have done it quite as masterfully, even if they clearly were inspired by it. Which is fine; They have done other things better.
Edit: Btw, DS3, since you mentioned it, is probably my least favorite of the bunch. DS2 at least tried a bit more to do its own thing. DS3 returned to the roots, yes, but in the process feels the most like a rehash of DS1, but invariably worse since a copy never reaches up to the original. That's imo one of the reasons why ER was deliberately given a different name, marketed as something different and has at least some clear deviations in the design, such as the open world.
There is also the element in which, since the DS entries are explicitly intended to be different iterations of the same loops, makes them work together better than alone. See this post which in my view - despite me agreeing that DS3 is a weaker entry! - entirely misses the point of the DS3 design: By the time of this iteration, the cycle has been going on too long, the fire has been lit too often, so that the sacrifice has to be ever greater for but a sliver of the greatness achieved earlier. The message is clear: This time around, just lighting it yet again will not be sufficient. You have to find another way. It's deliberate.
Edit2: I also think, since, as you mentioned, a lot of the design choices are easy to miss & somewhat subject to interpretation, DS games are especially susceptible to the tendency to always like the first game of the bunch you played. You'll always be more willing to look into all the details, all the theories, etc. the first time around. The more you play, the more you tire of it, so you'll miss more and more on average.
FtttG
1hr ago
It's a known issue of pretty much any system that those who seek power are disproportionately those who wish to use it for their own personal gain.
More than that - it's a known issue of every system that agents who are optimising for seeking, maintaining and consolidating power within that system will outcompete agents who are optimising for anything else.
FtttG
1hr ago
“When they go low we go high” was the motto for quite a while.
I would love to hear some specific examples of occasions on which Democrats went high while the Republicans were going low during the Obama administration.
JTarrou
1hr ago
So, they only broke the norms a bit by removing Trump from the ballot and charging him with a hundred felonies?
Sure, I say only remove half of them from the ballot and charge the Democrats with eighty felonies each. Let's de-escalate this shit!
And how does this make a meaningful difference? Bad policy as a response to bad policy is just more bad policy.
The meaningful difference is that there is not just a policy conflict. There is also a relationship conflict.
Imagine for instance if the response to leftist rent control was a rent floor rather than not enacting price controls to begin with.
Imagine what the response to leftist rent proposal might be if the standard conduct of of the leftist advocate coalition pushing / advancing / defending the policy in the decade prior did not also make public attacks on the moral and personal character if their opponents, upto and including ruining the career prospects of individuals and defending such action of their coalition peers. Imagine if the leftist coalition did (or did not) have a contemporary (or multi-decade) reputation of lying about policy concessions only to renege on them, and then accusing the opponents of being unwilling to compromise or actively being tyrants for insisting on- or enforcing- the earlier compromise.
It would matter relatively little what the current policy proposal is. Significant skepticism, suspicion, lack of trust, and warning to others would be warranted on the basis of past behavior.
The patters of past behavior are what establish a relationship, not just a policy, dispute.
Organizations, in being controlled and owned by people do in fact make decisions. Organizations are just a group. If the group members (or owner of the group if it's legally theirs) makes a decision, then the group itself can be said to have made a decision.
Congratulations on not recognizing the common attribution error, and the implications that has for recognizing the differences in impersonal and personal relationships with groups of people that shape how people respond to actions by that group.
Your relationship with a [committee] of people you don't know, and with a [committee] of people you do know and have a relationship history with, are fundamentally different.
Of course if the people in it change over time, we expect the group itself to change but it's still just that, reflective of the humans within it.
If we equivocate degrees of change, or great deal of incredibly significant social dynamics such as the nature of a group's selection bias and internal enforcement dynamics. Why you would want to ignore such dynamics which are very relevant to political faction hostility is not something we agree on.
For example, we don't actually expect a group to meaningfully change itself if the group is actively engaging in self-selection and ideological compliance actions for its induction of new members. A hobby group can remain a hobby group by recruiting and retaining members of the hobby. This, however, is a completely different organizational culture- and survivorship bias- than a organization that engages in ideological policing of its members. The more prone a group culture is to self-selection and ideological purity spirals, the stronger the survivorship bias can be expected to be, and the less relevant the changes are to central issues (as opposed to largely irrelevant non-central changes).
A organization which applies and maintains self-selection and internal indoctrination is over time going to be composed of true believes, willing conformists, or cynical grifters. 'The group will change' based on the relative composition, but the change on the willingness to act in line with the true believers does not change until outside pressure creates conditions so that the grifters see a deal elsewhere, and the conformists are willing to conform in a different direction.
That outside pressure, in turn, is [hostility].
Ok I agree that when leftists implement bad counterproductive and unhealthy policies like high corporate taxes or price controls or whatever other economically/freedom damaging policies, it's understandable to react negatively. But I don't see why that would lead to the response of joining in on the self harm.
Because you avert your eyes and do not acknowledge conflict beyond a policy conflict, and do not listen when people tell you there another sort of conflict taking place, and thus do recognize when different types of responses that are appropriate in different types of conflicts are appropriate because there is a different type of conflict going on.
See no issue, hear no issue, understand no issue that warrants issue-dependent response.
If leftists are stabbing the nation, why grab a knife and join in on the murder? Your comment doesn't answer this,
And nor should it, because my comment is that your chosen paradigm, [vengeance/murder], is false and misleading. You do not challenge a false and misleading framing as such on the framing's own grounds, you contest the framing.
In turn, someone's insistence on false and misleading framings can itself be a 'knife' that can be used to 'join in on the murder.' After all, a willful framing that implicitly accuses the dissenters of being equivalent to Bad People- say an immoral murder- is a form of accusation. An accusation can be true or false, but if it is publicly repeated when false, it is not a just a lie, but slander.
I suspect you would concede, if pressed, that dissent to your preferred way of political conflict is not equivalent to murder. I think you would also concede that slandering your countrymen (and women) is an attack on the country that is composed by them. But by making the framing, you are already grabbing a knife and giving another jab yourself.
it just assumes that saying "bad relationship" explains why I should want to harm our nation and our future.
It makes no such assumption that you should 'want to.' It is expressing that "bad relationship" is the harm.
Your nation is a collection of individuals in multitudes of relationships. Your collective future is in turn entails both the character and the consequence of those relationships. If a community has strong and positive relations, then it can overcome even great disasters. If a community has weak and negative relations, it will fail to unite over even common challenges.
There is no common interest without commonality of the people with interests. Commonality of this sort is not categorical or imposed from the outside (or above), it is cultivated and perceived through the relationship people have with each other. It is what separates a nation from an accident of geographical proximity.
If you break down that sense of commonality through negative relationships- regardless of whether that's actively attacking your opponents, or 'merely' turning a blind eye to the attacks by others because it doesn't interest you- then over time your opponents will learn that their interests are not so common with you, and stop perceiving such a strong relationship of commonality with you in turn. This manifests in things such as declining social trust, lower trust in shared institutions, and so on.
Whether you 'want to' end in a low trust society is irrelevant. It is a product of relationships whether you like it or not. In turn, you can ruin a relationship as much be neglect or dismissal of other party's concerns as anything else. A knife is still a knife.
FtttG
1hr ago
Note that tit-for-tat recommends cooperating until you are defected against. If there's no first defecter, cooperate-bot and tit-for-tat produce identical behaviour.
Regarding the orbital supercomputer, isn't that inexplicable if it's not military? Why would you need real-time processing, can't you eventually send the data to Earth?
The only scenario I can imagine where it'd make sense to do processing in space is if you need to track aircraft in flight, ship wakes or something urgent. Maybe it's on the other side of the world to your ground stations and neutrals won't let you use their equipment... Maybe you're being jammed and you need to send only short packets of data through. The cost of spacelaunch, radiators and bespoke equipment surely make processing in space uncompetitive compared to a data centre on Earth if its for civilian purposes right?
FtttG
1hr ago
When he's not being a thin-skinned emotionally incontinent manchild, Freddie deBoer can be remarkably perceptive:
Do you want to know what ideology is? What we mean when we say “ideology at its purest”? It’s not a collection of policy positions. It’s not a political party you vote for. It’s not even your conscious beliefs about right or wrong, your philosophy about how humans should act individually and collectively and the relationship between those acts and the public and private good. No, ideology refers to those beliefs you do not examine because you do not see them as beliefs at all. Ideology isn’t a matter of ingesting arguments about better or worse, right and wrong, and evaluating them to determine your own beliefs. Ideology is fundamentally the unexamined framework of the system through which you perform such an evaluation, the part you can’t and don’t see; it’s the assumptions that you cannot understand as assumptions.
Soteriologian
1hr ago
I mean I tried Dark Souls after Elden Ring. I just don’t see it, man.
The collapse of a great society sentiment is there, yes, but the difference in depth and subtlety is the difference between a post on /r/collapse and Meditations on Moloch.
RenOS
something is wrong
2hr ago
People say GRRM was just there to have his name on the tin for marketing, but I don't know how anyone literate can conclude this. The lore of Elden Ring has the most profound aesthetic depth I've ever seen in a video game, and that depth is simply not there in Dark Souls 3 or in Shadow of the Erdtree (the former felt like the Walmart version of Elden Ring, and the latter like the Hobbit compared to the LotR trilogy). To me it's clear the big-brain behind the magic is Martin himself, and, in his own words, "when the sun has set, no candle can replace it."
The reason people say this is pretty simple, it's that Elden Ring's setting, to the DS veteran, mostly is just more of the same as has been done the last three times. It's just hard to really see Martin's stamp. You can of course claim that he has done it better, but this is quite subjective. There are a lot of arguments about that already, and everyone has their own opinion. ER is undoubtly a good game, but most of your post could be written equivalently for any DS game, including even the aesthetic design (well, maybe not DS2, as much as I think it is somewhat underrated) and, funnily enough, even Martin's quote. Partially for this reason I got bored with ER halfway through the game, though I'll certainly pick it up eventually again. As a DS veteran you just can't shake the feeling that you have already played this game 3+ times, with near-identical story beats, setting and mechanics.
No_one
2hr ago
A lot of self-identified Marxists really do not seem to grasp the concept of the veil of ignorance.)
You don't understand Marxism. This here was written by a guy who was a respected and prominent Trotskyist in 1930s.
NON-COMMUNISTS HAVE OFTEN upbraided communists for what are alleged to be gross inconsistencies in communist behavior. The charge goes as follows: You communists call for a maximum of free speech, free press, free assembly and other civil rights in the United States and other non-communist countries; but inside the countries where communists are in power you have suppressed, or virtually suppressed, all these rights. You uphold the right to strike in non-communist countries, and very often exercise that right in practice when you are in control of trade unions; but in the communist countries it is criminal, in some cases a capital crime, to strike or merely advocate striking.
If you were able to understand the historical dialectic—which, since you are not a communist, you cannot really do: only the living practice of communism makes possible a genuine understanding of the theory of communism—you would realize that there are no inconsistencies. In every case the seeming contradictories, in the reality of time and history, reinforce each other and fuse their dynamism into a synthesis at a higher historical level. The communist camp is the thesis which represents the historical interests of the revolution, therefore of peace, freedom, justice, well-being, and the future of mankind in the coming epoch of a truly human history. Anything that strengthens the communist camp is right and just and good. In the present transitional era of world struggle, of wars and revolutions, the use of civil rights inside the communist camp to publicize opposition to the line of the Party and the revolution would only express the intrusion of counterrevolutionary influences, of capitalist hangovers and imperialist interventions; the proper purpose of public speech and assembly is to support, strengthen and improve the work of the revolution, not to sabotage it.
jfx
2hr ago
The article is a bit all over the place. In my worldview advice for "goal achievment" (such as fitness, career) usually places itself on a spectrum between one-size-fits-all, but easily implemented and on the other end nuanced, but harder to implement.
The difficulty to effectively (thus correctly) implement advice IMHO relies on entirely separate traits of the recipient:
- level of prior competence
- level of "ability to comply", aka willpower, aka conscientiousness
- level of self-criticism, aka ego, aka parts of neuroticism
Thus a one-to-many advice approach will deliver mixed results at best. Competent teachers and coaches through talent and experience are able to identify these levels in their clients/students and will adjust advice accordingly. In the age of social media in most places online, advice will be captured by the masses, who are most of the time, very incompetent and very weak-willed. An example of this is the so called "beginner-trap" in fitness content with 80%-90% of monetarization targetting beginners.
FtttG
2hr ago
For clarity, when I said "no argument here", I meant that I wasn't disputing that many MAGA types are calling for their opponents' heads. My point is that I don't think this observation in and of itself disproves that MAGA types are making the game-theoretic-optimal choice at this point in the decision tree.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
2hr ago
I disagree with WITS as measure
What metric do you prefer?
There are many Americans who, have, in fact not benefitted from free trade, from the free movement of peoples. I have this bloody shirt of three innocent people killed by a trucker u-turning on the highway with his truck.
This has to do with tariffs how? Would the truck have had better sightlines if it were American-made?
The countless dead of working-class communities who were eaten alive by fentanyl and despair.
This does not seem like a problem tariffs solve.
The general collapse of the affordability of housing.
This does not seem like a problem tariffs solve.
The old social contract is already dead. Why cling to an order that gives nothing for my compliance and has no resistance to offer for my defiance?
Because the rumors of the death of the old social contract are exaggerated, and because you want to build a world that is better rather than worse for your children. If you do want to build a better world for your children, but just disagree what "better" looks like, then sure, let us discuss specifics. Particularly the specifics around tariffs, which I note you have still not given a concrete defense of. But if you are so far gone that you care only for the suffering of your opponents, if you have no positive vision for the world, then I agree that there is no value in talking to you. It's not like either of us is particularly influential.
The red-browns, one way or another, will come for the little urban enclaves eventually.
You're glowing. Might want to get that checked out.
It's not so fun when you're the number on the spreadsheet, is it?
I mean, I'm already a number on the spreadsheet. So are you. Such is life in the modern analyzed world. I don't think there is any time or country in history I would prefer to live in than current America, even given the problems we have now. I expect, absent a civilization-ending catastrophe, this will remain true. I am worried that something precious is being lost, but the "something precious" is "the crown jewel of the world" and not "a serviceable nation" - I expect the decline to look like what Britain has gone through.
Anyway, are you planning to defend the tariffs as being good at accomplishing some specific concrete policy goal that you care about accomplishing or no?
TIRM
2hr ago
My insurance charges all policyholders enough to pay on average $2000 for this procedure, or a copay of $2000 if we are imagining patient out of pocket. I’d say that’s rather the point of insurance. There’s some tiny chance of true financial disaster and they charge all of us a bearable portion of that small chance.
Tenaz
3hr ago
I mean, "work harder and smarter" is good "advice" in this sense for at least 95% of people. Heck, "Make all the right decisions and don't make mistakes" is even better; 100% of people would benefit from that.
Advice is more than just [things it would be good if people do]; there's a sense in which it actually has to be useful, insightful information. In this much more relevant sense, most advice is bad, because it's not useful or insightful.
It essentially implies the difference between the right wing and left wing argument about things are about morals and not about the effectiveness of policy or economic ideas for the good of our country and our citizens.
I have seen this argument before, where literally in the same sentence somebody can say that other people argue about morals, while he just wants what is good for people. You do realize, that moral philosophy on basic level talks about distinction between what is good and what is bad? As soon as you use the word good or bad, you are making a moral argument.
There seems to be certain myopia for many people, where they hold some moral positions without acknowledging them as such. They pretend that their morality is objective and rational, not even warranting defending it - as if they read it from facts of the universe, they gleaned it from the proton number of atom of carbon, or from trajectory of Jupiter or something like that. It is similar trick adjacent to Russel's conjugation in much of leftist thinking - our moral philosophy is true and just and outside of critique, while your moral philosophy is just a hideous ideology.
georgioz
3hr ago
Sure, there can be a weird twist when in let's say 50 years what constitutes an undesirable group can change quite radically. The unpredictability of lebanonization of a country.
I disagree with WITS as measure: it doesn't matter if dates and feta cheese are duty-free if it's averaged out with protectionist tariffs for trucks and other heavy industry. Tariffs aren't even the whole story when it comes to protectionism. There are subsidies, designated country of origin, etc...
But that's beside the point. There are many Americans who, have, in fact not benefitted from free trade, from the free movement of peoples. I have this bloody shirt of three innocent people killed by a trucker u-turning on the highway with his truck. The countless dead of working-class communities who were eaten alive by fentanyl and despair. The general collapse of the affordability of housing. I could go on and on.
The old social contract is already dead. Why cling to an order that gives nothing for my compliance and has no resistance to offer for my defiance?
I expect the business owners and manufacturers to be unhappy about the tariffs: their profits are made at the expense of the people and communities they live in. Skin in the game is a good model of demonstrating sincerity, provided that access to the table is possible. It hasn't been for a very long time. Well, now our problem is your problem. The red-browns, one way or another, will come for the little urban enclaves eventually. Whether it be putting soldiers in your streets or giving you bloody shaves by taxation, the end result is the same. Pay up, liberal. What are you going to do, write an angry letter to your congressman?
It didn't work for us: why would it work for you?
It's not so fun when you're the number on the spreadsheet, is it?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
No argument here: lots of MAGA types really are calling for their opponents' heads.
I do have an argument - that's what "dispassionately weighing up their options and reluctantly opting for tit-for-tat as the best of a bad bunch" looks like.
When Russia invaded and Ukrainians started referring to them as "orcs", that does not detract from their defense being a reluctant tit-for-tat. That sort of language is what you need to hype up a collective, and coordinate actual defense.
It seems very likely that everything you’re saying is true but thé limited NHS budget wasn’t getting stuck with the bill(thé Italian government and the pope were gonna take care of it). What this actually looks like is petty bureaucrats being thin skinned self important control freaks- again, thé NHS wasn’t being forced to treat them, wasn’t being asked to pay to treat them, was merely being asked not to prevent seeking treatment in a foreign hospital.
More options
Context Copy link