Obviously, money is a factor. But you cannot discount political resistance. If a government in charge is dead set in promoting fossil fuels over renewables, it will never happen. Even if you get a government led by the most gungho green friendly administration, in a democratic government, those opposing can stall any plans to go green. If you live in a less democratic government where leadership decides it's going green, you're going green.

> (On a side note its been yeara since floppy drives were the A: drive... and yet we are still stuck with the primary disc being called C:)

The logic behind that is pretty obvious isn't it?

Unless you mean retrocompatibility, no it's not that obvious to me.

I think it's clearly back compatability.

Yeah, but if you've got your phone in portrait mode for the socials, you are panning relative to the the landscape orientation.

Clearly, you've never worked with a live video crew. If they have no practice, it's amazing how bad you can appear with a lack of appreciation of how fast things move. You also have to remember the camera/operator are really far away with a very large zoom. Things leave your field a view much faster than anticipated. After that, any correction becomes over corrections again because of the zoom factor. Also, I would not be surprised if people were watching IRL as much as their screens/viewfinders.

I've seen it in sports where someone just not up to speed is always behind the play and the center of action is just out of frame. At that point, you zoom out some to recenter and then zoom back in. Or the director cuts away and lets you catch up. But that's assuming competency up the chain.

> Things leave your field a view much faster than anticipated.

Not sure about that. NASA has been using Kineto Tracking Mounts and ROTI (radar-assisted and optical tracking) since 1981. Those systems were developed for the Columbia launch. I find it hard to believe that today's computer-guided cameras would let anything slip out of frame unintentionally.

Those cameras are for official NASA archives and study of the launch. Those are not for some webcast live stream. Maybe they can piggy back a live stream camera to it for the next one, but they are not going to dedicate one of those mounts for a live stream camera, and I doubt they'd allow for a tap out of the feed.

Hell, you can see it too in the latest F1 movie.

Shots in which the base plate was taken from live footage (crews trained in filming the sport) are stable and show all the action. Shots from Hollywood camera crews can barely keep up.

One may say this is a bad comparison point, and that it was an artistic choice, but I call bullshit on that. So much of the movie was based upon live footage that the ones that didn't just look amateurish.

And yet, both crews are professionals. It is difficult to film these things well.

Unless you have a really cheap production budget, there are multiple races with each race day being preceded by practice times and qualifiers. There's plenty of time to point a lens and get a feel for the tracking speed. It's not like there's a NASA launch weekly/monthly/annually. So yeah, I'm leaning on just an out of sync crew way more than this "anticipating a bad thing happening" theory

The probability that they accidentially missed the booster separation is very low. There is also a clear incentive to cut away in case it fails.

I don't understand the logic people are using to keep repeating this. It's just yet another example of how ideas fester and spread on the internet.

No problem. I can explain it to you.

> The probability that they accidentially missed the booster separation is very low. > There is also a clear incentive to cut away in case it fails.

This is called the "premise" in logic.

"It follows that it is very likely the cut was intentional"

This is the conclusion.

All logical sound arguments are structured like this (otherwise you can come up with any conclusion).

> It's just yet another example of how ideas fester and spread on the internet.

And this is a conclusion without premise.

You're proposing a conspiratorial level intent instead of the much easier and more likely operators not as good at their job as hoped. Occam's razor would suggest you are wrong.

Your premise is no better than Qanon premises that a pizza place had a torture chamber dungeon. Your premise is no better than an interstellar hung of rock floating through the solar system was an spaceship. Your premise is just made up out of thin air with no proof whatsoever.

Yeah, it seems like the site's processor should have noticed this one site sending thousands of $1 charges and refunds in a small window much more easily than the site recognizing it was being done. The processor has much more to loose multiplied across all customers making it worth their time

thousands of $1 charges and refunds in a 7 hour period seems unusual to me. then again, i've never run a site that received thousands of charges ever, so seeing it in a few hours would be obvious.

Genuinely asking, are you a product manager? You’re giving me flashbacks to all of the PMs who suggested a 2-3 branch decision tree for a complex classification problem, because that’s what struck them as intuitive. We are just a few baby steps away from reinventing the entire field of fraud detection within this thread.

Sir, I resent the implication! I do not lie with such swine!

It's easy to say that every site must add protections against every single type of attack, except it's impossible for site owners to be experts in fraud. While credit card processing vendors are expected to be experts in fraud. I ask you where in this situation would be the better place to implement fraud detection? Of the two places, whose more financially at risk?

:)

I think we’re 100% in agreement: let the payment processors handle the fraud. Except payment processors unfortunately hold all the cards and will shut your site down if you don’t comply with their standards :(

> reinventing

https://xkcd.com/793/

I'm assuming there were transaction IDs provided that can be given to the processor. If they can't do anything with the IDs, then that's a pretty broken system.

> This means every user visiting LinkedIn with Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera, Arc, or any other Chromium-based browser is subject to the scan.

A lot of people mistakenly refer to Chromium-based browsers as being Chrome-based.

I feel like this is obvious and you know that this is the exact mistake being made, but rather than drop an actual correction, you take the insufferable approach of pretending you don't know what's happening and forming the correction as a question.

> A lot of people mistakenly refer to Chromium-based browsers as being Chrome-based

This seems to be a case where the poison seeps through the cracks. From Google and Chrome to other Chromium-based browsers. In very correct ways, in this case, they are Chrome based.

From "The Attack: How it works", its just checking the user agent string:

function a() { return "undefined" != typeof window && window && "node" !== window.appEnvironment; }

function s() { return window?.navigator?.userAgent?.indexOf("Chrome") > -1; }

if (!a() || !s()) return;

I was cussing at the director of that video stream during that. It was a totally useless shot as well that they lingered on that already had me bothered, and then to cut back to the SRBs fully separated had me in full contempt. Nothing to see here and everything to miss. It's like music videos showing the singer doing nothing while the guitarist is shredding a solo. Like WTF. You have one job, and you totally botched the hell out of it. You get what you pay for I guess. Lowest bidding contractor???

That's what I thought standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon. Pictures just do not do it justice. Same thing with Starship. My brain knows it's massive, yet feels underwhelmed looking at it on video. Musk should let his ego build replica Saturn V and a Shuttle next the Starship launch pad so there will be proper perspective available

Have you been to the rocket garden at KSC? The Saturn V isn't vertical, but they've got almost everything from the Redstone and later vertical. I was in Florida in 2018 and I think they were getting ready to display a pair of SRBs. They did have Atlantis inside, too. And of course a horizontal Saturn V.

I saw that Saturn V as a child once, too. I think that the Saturn V really made me the person that I am today. Seeing something so huge, that is literally engineered down to every last tenth of a millimeter - that was profound for a young child. I could not believe how detailed that rocket was, yet so huge. There should be an engineering term for the size of a machine divided by the smallest critical engineered component of the machine. I don't think any machine would have beat that in the Saturn V's day - maybe some ocean liners?

I've never been to KSC. I've been to Houston a few times. I couldn't imagine trying to have a Saturn V permanently standing would be an easy feat with both locations susceptible to hurricanes and tornadoes. Walking the length of it is still pretty impressive.

I come from a construction family, so I'd put some of the famous sky scrapers in that category too. Especially thinking about the crazy beam walkers like that famous photo of the guys riding the I-beam up eating their lunch on the way up.

I saw the one in Houston for the first time last week. It was so cool. My favorite spacecraft as a kid, but in real life it was about 4x as big as I expected.

A few years ago Spacex did a homage to that photo, with the crew working on the Starship. One of those amazing Human For Scale photos that emphasize just how huge that rocket is.

"size of a machine divided by the smallest critical engineered component of the machine"

Computer processors probably take that cake.

That's a great point. And it raises the question if we consider the nanometer scale features of the processor against the size of the rocket as a whole.