Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Crew-9 Returns to Earth

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 712 posts

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#611

Post by esskay »

ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #368
esskay wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody was stranded. It's amazing how effective lying to people has become.

They weren't stranded, they just had no way of going home which was totally and completely planned for.

You really, really need to read about the actual situation before commenting. They always had a way of coming home at any point if they needed to. There was a literal whole planning session, all publicly available on Nasa's media channels detailing in great depth the steps that were taken prior to Starliner departing to ensure there was always a guaranteed safe way to get them home, even in the event of an entire station evac.

As I say, it's amazing how effective lying to people has become that you genuinely bought that total load of crap that they were stranded.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#612

Post by esskay »

concordDance wrote: post #349
esskay wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has the same flaw as the other person who replied to me. Using the car anology only works if you also say you've got another car following you at all times, fully fuled and capable of getting you home, in which case, no, you are not stranded. Stranded implies they cant get home. Not that it costs more, or is inconvenient. The litteral definition is "left without the means to move from somewhere".

I'm afraid you'll find far more non-literal uses of "stranded" than you will find literal ones if you looked at how humans actually use words. In fact, I'd be surprised if even 1 in 100 actual uses of the word in, say, 2023 matched the definition you've given. "Left by your friends in an empty car park? Well, there's technically an unlocked bicycle over there..."

I see this is a pointless conversation if we're now saying words don't mean what they mean. You do you.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#613

Post by davidmurdoch »

foldr wrote: post #601
davidmurdoch wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, I was suggesting exactly that. I'm pretty sure I'm correct, and that you are too: the president could theoretically do that. Or, in the very least, strongly influence decisions made by NASA. I'm also saying that the NASA _is_ part of President Biden's administration, as the "NASA Administrator" at the time, Bill Nelson, was actually nominated by President Biden. --- But maybe I'm wrong and the downvoters co…

The President could theoretically muck around with decision making in all kinds of federal agencies. That doesn’t mean that the President’s administration is responsible for every technical decision made by every agency. If the NTSB fails to correctly identify the cause of an air accident, is that the President’s fault because the President nominates the board? Most people wouldn’t think so. They realise that as the…

Assigning blame and fault are a similar, but still different than being seen as responsible for something, but I'm actually don't care to do either (blame/fault or responsibility).

The point I am making is perhaps just being taken as a semantics issue about the use of the word "administration", but NASA _is_ part of the president's administration, technically and practically. But I can see how someone could think "Biden administration" and only think of him and those involved in "everyday" presidential actions.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#614

Post by acdha »

queuebert wrote: post #378
throwway120385 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What interview? Can you link it?

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1897470032612851893 (Note: I don't know anything about the X account. It was just the first result I found.) Edit: Also it sucks that I can't ask a genuine question on this website without getting downvoted to oblivion. Whatever the answer, it would be nice to get it without being judged.

> Also it sucks that I can't ask a genuine question on this website without getting downvoted to oblivion

You asked a question in a confrontational manner, and which had the same misrepresentation as various political operatives have been using. I think you got caught up in looking like you knew the answer but were hoping that readers did not, which is common enough that many people try to discourage it here.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#615

Post by [deleted] »

nailer wrote: post #493
MostlyStable wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elections are one way of selecting government officials. Authoritarianism is a political philosophy that can be pursued no matter how one was selected. Yes, many/most authoritarians arise either not in democracies, or else in situations where the elections are mostly/entirely a sham, but that is not a requirement. You could, at least in principle, have an authoritarian surveillance state where the government watches…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#616

Post by sanderjd »

nailer wrote: post #606
sanderjd wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing you pasted here suggests that those attributes are required for the definition of "authoritarian regime", it is just a characterization of "the most notable authoritarian regimes" as it itself says in the text.

[flagged]

You're right that most people in this thread are likely native english speakers, but that just means that we can understand that the weird narrow read of the words "authoritarian regime" is silly and, based on other comments you've made, very likely just you being purposely obtuse for partisan reasons.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#617

Post by sanderjd »

nailer wrote: post #604
sanderjd wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody in this thread has said "this is a single-party regime akin to Iraq or North Korea".

No, they used the term ‘authoritarian regime’ which commonly means this. See the references I have posted elsewhere in this thread.

It doesn't though. You are the only one who has brought up these other countries.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#618

Post by acdha »

bigtones wrote: post #292
pavlov wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Berger is an excellent journalist. He’s very knowledgeable about space topics, has good sources, and has been extremely fair to Musk in the past. When he says it’s a “throne of lies”, a line has been crossed.

> He’s very knowledgeable about space topics, has good sources, and has been extremely fair to Musk in the past. None of the writers of Ars Technica are anything like fair to Musk.

What is your standard of fairness? This seems eminently fair: Musk lied for political reasons and people who care about that whole objective reality thing are criticizing him for it. He’s arguably the second-most powerful man in the world right now and craves attention like few others, so it seems quite unfair to say he shouldn’t be the subject of public criticism when he certainly doesn’t apply that standard to his own behaviour.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#620

Post by sanderjd »

nailer wrote: post #603
sanderjd wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, you really need to take the partisan blinders off. They are actively, and extremely obviously, executing on the Project 2025 plan, which they wrote up for exactly this reason. This is primarily being driven by Russell Vought, whose plan this is, through his role at the head of the Office of Management and Budget. There was no "conspiracy" about this, there was only a candidate who brazenly lied about his connec…

Yes there is, the idea that Project 2025 was the GOP platform is provably false. You can read Agenda 47 yourself on the GOP website. The false allegation relies on the fact that very few people will know to do that. As you believe Vought is conspiring - you have stated this yourself, the only gaslighting is pretending you have not - and presumably that publishing Agenda 47 was also a conspiracy to hide a secret alter…

Look, if someone writes up "here's what our party's candidate is gonna do when we win the presidency", and then that party's candidate wins the presidency, hires the person who wrote that up to be the budgetary gatekeeper for the administration, and proceeds to do all the stuff that they wrote up, then that was the plan.

If the candidate said "that isn't the plan!", then they were just lying about that.

This isn't some wild coincidence. Vought isn't "conspiring", he's just straightforwardly executing what the plan was all along.

The Republican party and its candidate just lied about what the platform was. That happens, politicians and their parties lie.

But what I won't abide is people who lie to me about what is obviously happening in the present, which I can easily see with my own eyes. That is what you're doing here. It's just propaganda. It just makes you a liar.

Post reply on HN