Exactly, I was working on a little client for a self-hosted server app. Imgui is a rare mix of fast, lightweight, trivially cross-platform and stable, so I went with it and had the client easily compiling for Windows, Linux and browser, while being trivial to work with.

I have otherwise mostly given up on making GUI applications because I simply don't have time to pick up a bunch of UI toolkits for all the different platforms, pulling a massive dependency into my project and requiring constant maintenance to keep the program working.

It probably just asks you to enter the associated WhatsApp number

That would be a great way to make the brain drain even worse.

New Glenn is manufactured with a different philosophy, so Blue can't be Starship levels of cavalier with testing. It would cost way too much to do with their current approach.

The factory tours for the two show this difference. New Glenn production is a lot more classical aerospace in terms of a high tech cleanroom factory being built from the start, versus a rocket that started out being built in tents that is slowly guiding the factory design as the tolerances are sorted out.

I think Blue's philosophy is pretty similar to the old space giants, except for being willing to invest a ton of money into improvements and new technologies without waiting around for the government to give them a blank check first.

Maybe we'll find that the thing limiting aerospace progress wasn't even that old space was afraid to test, but rather that they were simply unwilling to progress on their own initiative.

Even old space got further in 20 years than Blue Origin.

Did I miss a privately funded, reusable heavy lift rocket coming out of old space in the past 20 years?

I guess it depends on which decade you look at. The Saturn and Shuttle programmes achieved more novelty for the time on faster timelines. Of course, they also cost a lot more....

That is clearly not true. SLS is much more expensive by any measure and is not reusable in any way. Other interesting work, e.g. rocket lab, is not old space.

I think an aspect of a lot of those luckier kids is that they think being told they were lucky invalidates the hard work they feel they did, turning it into a nonsensical contest of comparing apples to oranges.

My siblings have a similar complaint when my Dad essentially implies that they were lucky in having the successes they have had. They do still somewhat understand what he means, but they dislike it because they think he's dismissing the hard work they put in. Of course, they don't see that he applies the same to those experiencing extreme poverty.

This makes me wonder if being told I was a smart kid (instead of "Good job kid!") wasn't such a bad thing after all. (Educators say tell kids "Good job!" instead of "You're so smart!", because the kids will fear losing that status and then not dare try hard problems).

I always think I'm lucky I was born with a pretty good brain.

This definitely comes up a lot and I've never found a satisfactory way to get through to these people that you can both work hard and be lucky.

The ultimate point is to get people to empathize with others, it's easy, especially in the general american culture, to treat being poor as a moral failure.

The problem is the world isn’t clean, statistics aren’t clean, it’s all mosaic. You can have noble, moral poors and rich. You can have absolute dirt bags both rich and poor.

I grew up in a take of two households, with parents divorced at a young age. Father grows up in a picture perfect well-to-do family and ends up a classic party-hard drug addled dirt bag. He died last year living alone, homeless in a tent off an interstate motel town. Mother grows up in a stereotypical “dad went out for milk” family that descended into (and rose above) poverty.

While my father just kind of floated around and lived life, my mother remembered the poverty she experienced growing up, worked her ass off in university, and worked two jobs (one professional, one as a weekend cahsier) until she retired.

Nothing any of us can write here on a forum from on high will counter lived reality.

All this is to say, I agree about empathy being needed on society, poverty can still be moral failure. Pretending it can’t is just as in constructive as any other moral argument in this topic.

Of course it's possible for poverty to be a moral failure, but I think the point is to not be so quick to pass judgement on people you barely know.

Having seen the above I would be cautious about believing it.

In divorce courts will often emotionally and monetarily abuse men. (divorce itself if you love the other party is emotional abuse, though I don't know what to do about this. Abusive men do love their wives despite the abuse). As such die of a drug overdose while living in a homeless tent is probably the only option seen left.

I'm not saying there are not lazy losers in the real world. However the picture is often more complex and few people will admit that.

It's to have something better than just the bare minimum. I remember seeing similar reports about higher education in remote villages in India, with cellular networks and internet access allowing people to learn without being able to move to somewhere close to sufficiently qualified teachers.

The image on the article talks about making Josephson junctions with it, and the abstract talks about epitaxial superconductor-semiconductor devices.

It feels like the researchers were mainly interested in applicability to Josephson junctions, and the article mixed them up with semiconductor junctions.

Exactly why I cringe so hard when AI-bros make arguments equating AI neurons to biological neurons.

There are some tradeoffs in the other direction. Digital neurons can have advantages that biological neurons do not.

For example, if biology had a "choice" I am fairly confident that it would have elected to not have leaky charge carriers or relatively high latency between elements. Roughly 20% of our brain exists simply to slow down and compensate for the other 80%.

I don't know that eliminating these caveats is sufficient to overcome all the downsides, but I also don't think we've tried very hard to build experiments that directly target this kind of thinking. Most of our digital neurons today are of an extremely reductive variety. At a minimum, I think we need recurrence over a time domain. The current paradigm (GPU-bound) is highly allergic to a causal flow of events over time (i.e., branching control flows).

They're booked out years in advance only in the sense that bookings are sorted out years before the payload is ready to fly. SpaceX has emphasized that they're capable of swapping out Starlink launches with a commercial payload if needed on short notice.

He was brought in to fix Blue's culture and try to speed things up, since the former Honeywell guy was taking forever to do anything.

I think it can be safely argued that since the fixes between attempt 1 and 2 happened entirely under him and faster than we're used to seeing from BO, he may have played a role.