Thats two hundred years and would cover the end of Plantagenet reign and the Tudor era.

Henry VIII reign happened during that period, at the beginning of your time period everyone would be catholic and at the end Queen Mary of Scotts was executed because the idea of a Catholic on the throne was unthinkable.

The UK is littered with castles and estates, normally they focus on specific historic events which happened at that location.

If you read the reports…

Normally JPL outsource their Mars mission hardware to Lockheed Martin. For some reason they have decided to do Mars Sample Return in house. The reports argue JPL hasn’t built the necessary in house experience and should have worked with LM.

Secondly JPL is suffering a staff shortage which is affecting other projects and the Mars Sample Return is making the problem worse.

Lastly if an organisation stops performing an action it “forgets” how to do it. You can rebuild the capability but it takes time.

A team arbitrary declaring they are experts and suddenly decideding they will do it is one that will have to relearn skills/knowledge on a big expensive high profile project. The project will either fail (and be declared a success) or masses of money will be spent to compensate for the teams learning.

Either situation is not ideal

The GAO has performed an annual review of the Space Launch System every year since 2014 and switched to reviewing the Artemis program in 2019.

Each year the GAO points out Nasa isn’t tracking any costs and Nasa argues with the GAO about the costs they assign. Then the GAO points out Nasa has no concrete plan to reduce costs, Nasa then goes nu’uh (see the articles cost reduction “objectives”).

The last two reports have focused on the RS-25 engine, last time the GAO was unhappy because an engine cost Nasa $100 million and Nasa had just granted a development contract to reduce the cost of the engine.

However if you took the headline cost of the contract and split it over planned engines it was greater than the desired cost savings. Nasa response was development costs don’t count.

Congress reviews GAO reports and decides to give SLS more money.

The other person was just wrong.

Large scale Hydrogen generation isn’t generated in a fossil free way, Hydrogen can be generated is a green way but the infrastructure isn’t there to support SLS.

Hydrogen is high ISP (miles per gallon) by rubbish thrust (engine torque).

This means SLS only works with Solid Rocket Boosters, these are highly toxic and release green house contributing material into the upper atmosphere. I suspect you would find Falcon 9/Starship are less polluting as a result.

Lastly the person implies SLS could be fueled by space sources (e.g. the moon).

SLS is a 2.5 stage rocket, the boosters are ditched in Earths Atmosphere and the first stage ditched at the edge of space. The current second stage doesn’t quite make low earth orbit.

So someone would have to mine materials on the moon and ship them back. This would be far more expensive than producing hydrogen on Earth.

Hydrogen on the moon makes sense if your in lunar orbit, not from Earth.

The script is causing poor behaviour by subverting the purpose of the up/down vote system.

The downvote button should be used to indicate a post doesn’t add to the conversation. It isn’t a dislike/disagree button, your supposed to comment in those situations.

I try to put effort into my comments, when they get randomly downvoted for no reason it can be upsetting.

Obviously you upset the mod and they overreacted, but your behaviour triggered the event.

It’s explained in the article

They basically made it law so the only regulation was “informed consent”, with informed consent you can launch private missions.

Government and private bodies were supposed to come together to come up with sensible rules. No one has done that.

So once the law passes nothing will really change, except government bodies will be required to figure out a framework to qualify private launches

Your posting this on KBin which implements the twitter style fediverse API.

Click the microblog button … Behold twitter replacement

What a difference, thank you!

I agree being able to filter/block everything from a domain on a per user basis would seem the reasonable middle ground.

Otherwise you’ll just end up with constant demands to defederate based on conflicting moral codes.

I don’t think growth should be the primary driver behind any instance, it should be about building and supporting the community on the instance.

Lastly I don’t think your argument is very persuasive, pick an idiology/group you feel are immoral (nazis, kkk, isis, etc…) and see if your own argument would convince you.

Engineering is tradeoffs.

A command shell is focused on file operations and starting/stopping applications. So it makes it easy to do those things.

You can use scripting languages (e.g. Node.js/Python) to do everything bash does but they are for general purpose computing and so what and how you perform a task becomes more complicated.

This is why its important to know multiple languages, since each one will make specific tasks easier and a community forms around them as a result.

If I want to mess with the file system/configuration I will use Bash, if I want to build a website I will use Typescript, if I want to train a machine learning model I will use Python, if I am data engineering I will use Java, etc .

I noticed it has RabbitMQ in “the caddy”.

I used to have a problem with an infrasture team, they would alter a managed switch or restart the DNS server I used and RabbitMQ would start running slow.

The solution was to restart RabbitMQ, everything else deployed was fine.

The other issue I used to have was resource related, if you hit the peak connection limit on a box the erlang processes could become disconnected from the erlang runtime.

The results here are abit random, it might refuse all incoming connections, it might run slow. You can tell thishas happened because restarting the application fails. It will stop but processes persist and prevent a start.

#rabbitmq

There is a 2.5% currency conversion fee (e.g. £ to €), then depending on the plan Ernest chose Patreon take 5/8/12%.

So worst case Patreon take 14.5%

£85 pcm? Surely such a supporter deserves their posts to be highlighted in gold with big arrows pointing everyone at them!

Remember your time has value, I much appreciate your efforts.

You’ve just moved the packaging problem from distributions to app developers.

The reason you have issues is historically app developers weren’t interested in packaging their application so distributions would figure it out.

If app developers want to package deb, rpm, etc… packages it would also solve the problem.

Nice out of date dependencies with those lovely security vulnerabilities!

Have they told you protocol compatibility is the reason?

I ask because when you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME. Which is a fun way of saying, while you have found an issue which should be resolved, you might complete the work and discover they had a different issue.

Secondly its important to remember while software engineers like to think they are super rational. They are people and people can have myopic views and giant egos.

Both of which can allow people to rationalize all sorts of weird and counter productive behaviour.

The code for mastodon, lemmy and kbin is open source and has been forked hundreds of times.

Admins can do whatever they like and people can build and deploy their own instance and enforce their own rules.

This is one of the key strengths of open source, people have forked projects took them in their own direction and had success.

Similarly ActivityPub is documented as a W3 standard, having read the standard the biggest weakness is the number of instances, not the size of the instances.

Also @mod I meant to hit reply and hit report and can’t see how to revoke

If I was Ernest I would configure Kbin to use a key/value map. Of instance name and a bot user id.

If instance request failures reach a threshold it which switch out the user agent to something new for that instance.

Perhaps you randomise it a little, perhaps use the lemmy id, etc…

My goal wouldn’t be malicious, more to mess with the lemmy devs. They can be honest an defederate from all kbin instances or spend lots of time quietly blocking them.

Why would KBin be unsafe?

Federation works by instances (e.g. kbin.social) registering an interest (subscribe/follow) in a specific magazine or person on other instances.

That means content is only brought into an instance that members of that instance are interested in (its the same with lemmy instances, we don’t see everything).

Similarly on kbin users can block individuals, magazines or whole domains. So even if kbin.social does federate with meta you don’t have to see/interact with it.

For instance I respect kbin users might want content from lemmy.ml, as the people who run it are tankies I have no interest in anything from that instance and block the domain.

I have no issues with part of the fediverse walling itself off from meta but remaining in contact with other instances. Similar to how beehaw defederated from lemmy.world but kbin could see beehaw and lemmy.world.

I would treat meta like any other instance, if its a source of headache then deferate.

The Embrace, Extend Extinguish argument makes no sense.

Take C#, many years ago Microsoft wanted to build its own Java JDK. As part of that they added Microsoft specific extensions. Sun said that wasn’t acceptable. Microsoft didn’t just stop, the renamed it C# and launched the product.

Everyone agreeing to defederate from meta won’t mean they stop. It won’t prevent EEE.

The best way to prevent EEE is given in our example. Java had a huge userbase who simply weren’t interested in migrating.

So you need to encourage organisations to deploy KBin/Lemmy instances which integrate with the fediverse. That gives them reach and when Meta tries EEE they cut off content their users want. So it forces them to be a good citizen.

I tried to self host using the docs and docker.

Normally I would check out source, build and deploy, but the docs suggest an entirely manual deployment or build/deploy via docker compose.

The issue I hit was figuring out what had failed in the process, I would have preferred a CI guide to produce working docker images and a CD guide for deploying the docker images.

The reason I gave up is there aren’t any release markers, I tried with develop and main and couldn’t figure out if it was me or the branches weren’t in a buildable state.

I don’t expect the a release to be perfect just an indicator that a working product was created at this point.