If you use youtube on a mobile app rather than a browser, it doesn’t have an address bar

I’m using an LG K9 right now. Works ok, but I’d prefer a smaller screen

I’m often reminded of a SpaceX render they put up on the 'Tube back when they were still working out the reusability thing. Commenters had a lot of questions about how the particular flight plan impacted on their fuel budget. And so, Elon himself waded in with the answers. Except he was talking about the dollar price it cost to buy the fuel. He was like ‘why are you worried about fuel, it’s not that expensive, guys’ because he didn’t understand the questions. He didn’t understand why the amount of fuel and the mass of the fuel would be significant to anybody. Guys, I think he doesn’t understand the rocket equation. He doesn’t understand the central problem of rocketry. I think the guy might be full of it.

If you check the ‘nerd stuff’, it shows it was posted at 15:13, and updated at 15:16. But there isn’t a UI element to show that at a glance.

I am pretty much the same demographic as you, and firmly not her target audience. But when she rerecorded her entire back catalogue to stiff some record industry creep, that was punk as fuck and I’m down for it.

I think the TLDR bot has its purpose.

Same, same.

What’s Ubuntu duntu u?

There’s a collection of spooky indie game reviews on Errant Signal’s channel. Faith looks like something you could be interested in.

Isn’t it more like, a guy who wanted to kill the Queen talked to a chatbot about it, and the chatbot rolled with it cos chatbots will default to rolling with whatever you give them? Just seems the likely scenario to me …

Yep, this BBC article has a couple of the chat logs. If they’re representative, the bot is no more culpable than if he asked a magic 8-ball.

Your less thans got HTML-escaped into < and I spent embarrassingly long trying to figure out what pointer magic you were demonstrating

What does this have to do with Errant Signal?

@kavin@feddit.rocks - the bot’s replying to itself again

If I hold down the home button on my phone, it launches the stupid Google Voice Search thing. Try as I might, I can’t find any way to remap that function.

Most of the weight is fuel/propellant, which is why most Mars mission plans have you manufacture propellant on-site. An empty fuel tank and some engines isn’t that heavy. Especially if, as you say, you’re able to reuse your lander. Anyway, everything you bring has weight. The issue is, how much and can you budget for it?

If your looking for somewhere to save weight, imo start by getting rid of the astronauts and all their associated life support and living space. Bonus - robots don’t even need frivolous luxuries like getting to return home.

I don’t think Mars colonies are realistic, but not for this reason. Mars has about one third the gravity of earth, and a much thinner atmosphere, so you can return on a significantly smaller rocket than you launched with. It’s true that manufacturing a space rocket of any size would require basically an entire civilization, but there’s no reason you couldn’t bring the return vehicle with you, and only require manufacturing fuel or propellant on site.

The top answer to this stackexchange post goes into a lot more detail on the practicalities https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2820/how-big-would-a-manned-ascent-stage-for-mars-need-to-be

Lex Luthor bought a company for 44 dollars then lost 40?

Don’t know if just a typo, but for large parts of the Anglosphere, spaz is an unacceptable ableist slur. It’d be great if you could find a different way to insult Huffman, ta.

Except it’s not and it won’t. It’s just a fraction of a second pop and done. There’s no sustained reaction because inertial confinement by it’s nature is extremely temporary, and there’s no way to introduce new fuel. If they do some monster fuel pellet that outshines the laser then sure - they can claim a net surplus. If they find some contrivance to keep a reaction going after it’s started then fantastic, well done, the day is saved. But they’re not likely to do that at the NIF because, shhh! NIF is not really about generating energy.

Wikipedia’s figures for the last time they made this claim. The exact figures might be a bit different this time round, but I doubt they’ve found 99% efficiency gains. Livermore sends out this sort of press release pretty regularly and it always comes down to the same creative accounting

Basically, there’s a whole load of input energy that they just don’t count. Heat? Doesn’t count. UV? Doesn’t count. Plasma? Doesn’t count. this diagram from the wiki might be instructive. There may be decent justifications for counting it like this - I don’t know, I’m not a nuclear physicist. But I think the way they continue to report it to the media is simply dishonest.