According to OP, there is substantial evidence indicating about 50% of the daycares are scams. I've seen Nick Shirley's video, I don't think he demonstrated any concrete about any of the sites he visited (he's not a very good investigator), but if the 50% number is correct... well, the broken clock was probably right at least a couple of times that day.
>> From now on, every time anyone says anything about Iran, I'll be pushing the narrative that "whatever Iran did, it was to defend itself".
> Israel was actually attacked
I was responding to your claim that Iran was defending itself... Whether or not Israel responded disproportionately to October 7 (it did), I don't think it's fair to say Iran's actions are "self-defense" in the same way that Israel's war was self-defense.
Right, that was the number I had in my head... and that's for the whole war. This guy apparently believes 300k were killed in the first month, but I have no idea where that's coming from.
Edit to add: Also, Israel was actually attacked, and civilians were raped, kidnapped, and murdered. Did any of the protestors in Iran kill, rape, or murder any of members of the regime who subsequently slaughtered them?
I find it much easier to take a strong stand on Russia/Ukraine than on Israel/Palestine. The history of Israel/Palestine is much more of a gray area. Palestine has used plenty of aggressive actions and rhetoric that make Israel's actions more understandable (if not justified).
Example of actions: Gaza invaded Israel and killed, raped, and kidnapped civilians on October 7. Ukraine had no such triggering event that caused Russia to invade.
Example of rhetoric: Gaza's political leaders have said they want to destroy Israel. I don't think anyone in power in Ukraine has said they want to destroy the Russian state.
I think "no wars of conquest" is a bright line that was crossed by Russia, that hasn't been crossed by other nations in a long time. And I think it's important for the whole world to take a stand on that, not just the nation that was invaded. It's not a "random stand."
Is this sort of interview common in the industry? This is the first time I've seen someone describe a technical interview I know I could pass with flying colors.
> Well, I made no such argument, the GGP did, and I'll quote:
You are talking in other posts about how no one is able to rebut you, but then when I try to restate your argument so I can rebut it, you refuse to engage and just say "I'm not making an argument." Help me out here, I'm trying to engage in good faith.
> > First of all, just because the trend is exponential now doesn't mean it always will be. That's silly.
> Silly why? Silly as the amount of processors that are sold every year?
Exponential growth never goes forever. Not in nature, not in economics, not in physics, not anywhere. It is limited by the available resources. You seem to be arguing that space flight will continue to grow exponentially, consuming all the resources required to sustain that growth, unless we stop it right now, or very soon. I think that is a silly argument.
You brought up processor sales as an example, but why not consider processor transistor density? That's something that was growing exponentially for a long time (Moore's law), but has since fallen off. We're putting lots of resources into processors, but only as much as it makes economic sense to do so. Why would space flight be any different?
> Even if costs do 'reduce exponentially' they are reducing towards a lower limit, not to zero.
Of course! But the argument isn't that the cost of space flight will somehow reach zero, the argument is that we aren't spending that much on space flight right now, we don't seem to be increasing our spending on it, and we're still getting benefits from cheaper launches, so why would we want to stop it?
> especially now that a whole bunch of use cases now become profitable
I think that looking at the profitability of use cases of space flight really only strengthens my argument, and weakens the one I think you're making.
So your argument is... we should limit the money we spend on commercial space flight, because the current trend is exponential growth, and if that continues without leveling off, then space flight will require greater and greater resources, eventually drawing from other, more worthy projects? Did I get that right?
First of all, just because the trend is exponential now doesn't mean it always will be. That's silly.
Second of all, the number of launches may be increasing at that rate because the launches have been made exponentially cheaper - why don't we look at % of GDP being put into space flight? I bet it would be flat or trending down.
Am I missing something here? I just don't think your implicit concerns are well-founded.