Jacke

AFAIK, Bill has been advised by his lawyer not to say anything about the matter. Back to what @Superfluous J said in his posts, what most people want out of KSP is a simple space simulator. As people play the game, they learn more about real astronautics and rocketry. And they know better Isp comes from propellant choices and engine design, not some silly RPG MacGuffin. So they want the game to do things like that. Many of those late game systems I've never really played with, but I went over them a few years ago. They are rather silly and gamey and not in a good way. We would expect better for KSP 2. Though it seems some of the basics are being difficult enough. Per ardua ad astra.

Because the Registry is a number of external files, within the program, this is technically IO. Because it's the Registry, that IO is likely done through a special API to send keys and values to the Registry, likely with flags about addition or updating or something. Whatever. When you have to code it, you look up the API and be sure you know what to do. Even when you've done it before. When you're doing IO, you have to code very carefully. Because it's very easy for the smallest error in the code--whether regular file IO or Registry changes--to produce masses of garbage in either the IO streams (standard input, output, error, open files, specials) or via a special API to the Registry. Similar problems with dynamic data structures, especially those mapped or written to files. All this code has to be as simple as possible so the programmers can be sure it does what's needed and not acting like a bunch of monkey trying to reproduce all of Shakespeare.

Source code is written in a language that makes it easier to understand what the program is doing and to modify it. Source code isn't really simplified. It's often much more complex to give programmers the tools to write what the program does in a way that's easier to understand, but in execution is much more complex. Compilers are the programs that take source code and turn it into object code, much closer or actually the instructions the machine hardware uses. The complex structures in the source code like data structures, programming loops, conditionals, etc. are made into simple but more wordy structures in the object code. It is possible to write object code directly. But that is only done now in limited cases. Compilers are a whole 'nother area of Computing with lots of fiddly bits.

Not to defend the costs of SLS.... There is no commercial market for beyond GEO. And no crew-rated commercial rocket that has a good C3. Don't mention Starship, as its C3 isn't good, without a LES will never be crew-rated, hasn't even flown successfully once, and the usual pacing element, the engines, are not in good shape. So, for the United States, for crew-rated beyond GEO, it's SLS or nothing right now.

Sorry your day is so bad. I heard stories from a close friend who's mother developed dementia. I didn't understand the true depths of it until my mother developed it. From its onset to her passing was 8 years, during which she was in a nursing home. My father passed away a few years before her and it was all on me. Midnight calls every time she fell, though fortunately nothing really came of them. It had a bad effect. I'm glad your injuries were minor. You're going to have to change how you work with that tool to prevent it falling on you again. Some Personal Protective Equipment might be in order too. This tragedy is all too common with young workers. I went many years in the Canadian Forces and it was with a lot of safety standards and a bit of luck I never had a serious injury. Safety standards are truly written in blood. My story. I was out earlier tonight. As I was walking around my home, I saw what at first I thought was a cat running away from me. But I quickly noticed it had a broad bushy tail. It stopped by my door and turned around to face me. There was plenty of light which was good. I spent my time bashing the plants besides the path to make noise. Eventually the skunk decided to turn around and wandered off. When I went in, there was no smell, so the skunk must have felt safe. Looks like a burrow was dug underneath my step. Which means a call to the landlord tomorrow.

Despite many accidents over the years, the largest sources of threatening radioactive exposure remains the same: Radioactive material going up the flu of coal-burning plants (which exceed what's allowed for nuclear power plants because it's "natural" radioactivity). In some regions, radon gas leaching from the ground from the radioactive decay of uranium ores in some locations. The problem with Fukushima is TEPCO went cheap on risk management when they did their threat assessment and didn't build a high enough sea wall. The Tohoku Electric Power Company didn't skimp when they designed the Onagawa nuclear power plant and it was even closer to the landfall of the tsunami. https://thebulletin.org/2014/03/onagawa-the-japanese-nuclear-power-plant-that-didnt-melt-down-on-3-11/

Except when you hit the limits of the superconductor and it stops being a superconductor.

However things work out for LK-99, it's likely to be limited in its applications because it's a ceramic and even if a superconductor at high temperatures, it's likely not to have a high current limit before its superconductivity breaks down. Unless it's cooled to lower temperatures. Because, as the video below points out, that's the same for the high-temperature (liquid-nitrogen temperatures) superconductors we've known about for 30 years or so. Thunderf00t has a bit of an attitude in his videos, but he does point out something important. Liquid-nitrogen temperature superconductors have been around for 30 years, but have virtually no applications use. The current LK-99 material has the same drawback as them: they're made of ceramics who's material properties (fragility, can't be connected after manufacture, easily driven out of superconducting over a certain current or by magnetic fields) are far from ideal as opposed to the alloy wires currently in use, including for liquid-helium temperature superconductors. So even if there's a form of LK-99 that's a high-temperature low-pressure superconductor, it being a ceramic will limit its applications. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3hubvTsf3Y

This Twitter post from Sabine Hossenfelder is spot on.

As I said elsewhere: Until there's a full process published that allows independent recreation and it's recreated, it's a fake.

It's better than making it a drinking game and just "taking a shot". Because I think no one's liver would survive that. I also agree with you on KSP versus KSP 2, especially this.

Pseudo-science hat trick.

I really wonder at what will be the merged corporation's name.

Everything I've read and watched says carbon composites are bad in compression. And the failure isn't due to exceeding a compressive limit but the point at which the hull buckles in some manner. There is also very little if any indication of the failure before it fails. It's likely they were just going through their dive when the hull failed and destroyed the submersible.

It ain't going to take much sea state to capsize that vessel, being so high out of the water.

The SOSUS system is very good at locating and identifying sources that put out multiple signals and that have previously been detected. While it would have seemed like a vessel implosion, it would still be a single signal. From what I heard, the USN informed the search agency, Boston US Coast Guard, which it was up to to release that information. They did use the information to narrow the search. It still required finding the wreck to be certain. Just from the publicly released information on Monday, those with a strong submarine knowledge like Sub Brief knew the submersible was almost certainly lost.

But considering some of the passengers were billionaires, I'm sure there'll be lawyers driving a civil suit that will start with getting those releases thrown out due to the incompetence and fatal hubris of Stockton Rush.

From what I know, that wasn't the problem with the 737 MAX. There were 2 problems as I see it. First problem was that Boeing (still in the grips of bad leadership fallout from the McDonnell-Douglas takeover in the 1990's) wanted to push out the 737 MAX without the need to re-certify pilots on a new model. This was crazy. The increased thrust of the new engines changed the balance between thrust, drag, lift, and weight, as well as the pitch moments needed to balance this across the flight envelop. Second problem was certain controls should have been updated but weren't. Like the pitch trim control. This was powered only when the software was active. Which then at times pushed the pitch trim control too far nose down. Turn off the software and the pitch trim had to be adjusted manually. This combination almost certainly led to the crashes. With proper training and pitch trim control, there would have been no need for the software to drive the pitch trim control. Back to this deathtrap submersible. From Sub Brief's video on it, which he researched from public sources, there was a culture of avoiding proper submarine knowledge experts and proper design, safety equipment, and testing of the craft. He also said there was apparently no proper true test depth dive. And that would be dangerous, as carbon fibre doesn't crack but shatters. I've heard from another source that 5in of carbon fibre wasn't enough, which by calculation should have a test depth about 4000m (which was never tested), about the same depth as the wreck of the Titanic; it should have had 7in. And Sub Brief compared it to Apollo 1: apparently no problem atmosphere environment control, just dumping more oxygen into a tube without ability from the inside to escape or even vent. It's another case of rich / billionaire hubris. They think they can set everything the way they want it. The Laws of Physics trumped them.

The Mods just get stuck with cleaning up all the messes that result.

Considering a max Gs over 700, I think you converted your Kerbals into Mystery Goo.

Damn, I'm ancient. I remember this. I also remember at least for me the game was a hella hard.

Said kid can't be a P.E. And they're off to work for Musk. That will be enough to crush anything good and bright within them.

There's also the Oberth effect.

If the performance of the larger nozzle isn't needed, a 1-for-1 exchange with payload mass for the reduced engine mass, as it's on the final stage.

I'd actually like to see relative numbers of the number of ejections out-of-combat versus in-combat. I'd suspect that out-of-combat is greater because these are high-performance aircraft operating much closer to their limits much more often. Combat aircraft designs also have features like near neutral stability even before computer controls were added, now even moreso with it. Of course, the high-performance design and its features are because they fly in combat, so even the out-of-combat failures are due to their role demanding that performance. I've wondered about the real survival chances for the various Shuttle abort modes, even the ejection seats in the first few flights. There was some revision of them in light of more serious analysis later in the Shuttle's life. Especially considering that it's now considered that the Gemini ejection seats may have had a low survival chance as well. Space rocketry and flight are things that aren't quite like anything else we do, although high-performance combat aircraft come close. It will develop as its own thing. There shouldn't be glib talk about becoming just like commercial aircraft flight because that ignores how challenging going to space and performing there is. I think space travel went far beyond being a stunt through the 1970's and 1980's. We have a workable system now with two groups of launch vehicles: Uncrewed LVs for cargo to orbit (and perhaps for a future vehicle, for return) which balance cost versus accepting a failure rate with work to minimize that failure rate. Crewed LVs for human transport which are specialized at greater cost to push that reliability along with launch escape systems and other abort modes to handle when things fail. Beyond LEO missions are similar in design, though more challenging. As an example, the original Mars Direct (with first the uncrewed Earth Return Vehicle followed by the crewed Mars Habitat Unit) had abort modes for failures of the MHU that got it back to Earth. It comes down to the fact that all space rockets and craft are high-performance and push much closer to their limits that common utility craft that operate on Earth. We desire better performance and safety but these will likely only improve over the current best slowly. Each new vehicle design is to a degree experimental and should be revised in light of knowledge from their operation. New LVs and craft for various missions, both evolutionary and revolutionary, should be part of this. One of the big mistakes of the Shuttle was that revised craft with revised handling wasn't developed in the 1990's.