volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@DavidM_yeg you're missing my point that they seem to be focusing on rules that aren't actually rules.

At least not substantially.

So yes! That they use the veto to prevent things from becoming rules means they aren't rules.

Maybe a person thinks they should be rules, and that's fine, but it's a little silly to lean on this analysis to say that the US doesn't abide by rules that are arguably not rules in the first place.

Maybe it's bad, but it's not really hypocritical.

@KarunaX

@birwin but again that overlooks the role of journalism in putting out solid information through mass communication.

You say needs input from the radical right, but reporting is not about getting input. And posting reports to Twitter can inform that audience, which is the fundamental task of journalism.

It has nothing to do with getting input.

So X represents an audience for good information, I imagine a much larger audience than parlor but I don't care to check, but heck, yeah post on both!

Fine, treat them the same, seek to inform both audiences.

Sounds good to me.

@taylorlorenz @caseynewton

@KarunaX but if you read the article it seems to really focus on things that aren't actually rules, at least rules that have been fully adopted.

So a bunch of countries propose a rule. That doesn't mean it's a good rule, or an actionable rule, or one that the US should follow.

So the analysis is a bit weak.

Yeah, sometimes the US doesn't do things that other people want it to do. That's not really hypocrisy, it's about sovereignty and the importance of writing rules that are generally workable.

@libroraptor generally in the US these assessments don't exempt anyone from responsibility. They mainly mean people won't go to jail for operating without the legally mandated assessment 🙂

SpaceX could not have legally launched their rocket without the environmental assessment approving it. Had they launched illegally there would have been hell to pay.

The assessment confirmed that the operation was being done in an environmentally responsible way without substantial impact on the environment, as per US law. That doesn't get the company out of responsibility, if anything it just confirms that the company was acting responsibly.

The company is still liable for environmental damage regardless of the assessment.

@GrrlScientist

@libroraptor The regulators were legally required to take all that stuff into account, and under supervision of courts, they did.

The federal system with jurisdiction there, setting aside state and local here, has multiple levels of independent review to make sure everything is being checked out, and lord knows they took their time conducting the assessment.

In my opinion the balance is a bit too far on the side of caution, but reasonable people can disagree on that.

But yes, the assessment took these things into account, as per the legal requirements to do so.

@GrrlScientist

@janef0421 that's not really accurate, though.

An enormous part of its design is about lowering the price to get cargo to Earth orbit, with human rating a bit down the road. The ship is part of the Starlink program, for example, not to mention various other NASA contracts that are short of human flight.

So this project is far, far more than just the dream of interplanetary flight.

As for destruction of the vessel, that was expected, and the vessels did what they were intended to do, testing new technologies and new techniques that build on their knowledge of engineering such structures.

@samuteki sadly, it seems like a lot of people just want it that way.

An awful lot of people don't just say politics is a fight like that, but they actually openly push it to be a fight like that, openly supporting politicians for being fighters.

A lot of people want politics to be a WWE wrestling match.

Personally I think this is due to people just losing faith in our institutions, and so they figure it might as well be entertainment.

@TodayInTwitter you know what they say about assuming.

But no, this is making a statement versus actually running the place better. It's superficial versus concrete.

She has a job to do, and your pressing for a symbolic gesture strikes me as pretty counterproductive to that.

@trashrobot@kolektiva.social this kind of statement always strikes me as pretty small-minded.

Not in the least because it doesn't recognize the customers who would lose service should the business go bankrupt.

@MugsysRapSheet no, SpaceX had an area near Hawaii cleared as the farthest they'd try to fly the rocket.

They weren't going orbital, as they didn't expect the rocket to make it.

Again, everything about the plan for the mission--the plan that was established ahead of launch day--reflects expectation that they would hit their goals and then see an explosion.

@Ghandralph @carlysagan

@MugsysRapSheet I started to pull up a link to the FAA application, but let me instead focus on what you said:

SpaceX flies self-landing boosters almost literally every day now.

So why do YOU think SpaceX decided not to try for orbit?

@Ghandralph @carlysagan

@deathkitten so I try to mean this helpfully, but the tone of your reply comes across as yet another case of proposing to talk AT people instead of to them, with this sense of educating at them instead of discussing and convincing them, meeting them in the middle.

There are different types of people, and the ones who are open to being educated are probably already on your side. The others won't respond well to being educated, but instead need to be invited over.

That's a problem I see all too often in the world, folks with the best of intentions engaging rhetorical strategies that end up counterproductive, actually turning off the very people they need to convince.

@matt5sean3 sorry to hear that, and yeah, I know a few people who have been laid off because they tried to do the right thing instead of playing the game.

I don't know if that's your story too, but it definitely happens.

@dangillmor keep in mind, we voted for this situation.

It's not that democracy is fragile. It's that people vote for dumb things.

Every one of the representatives in Congress was elected by the democratic process. And if we want change we need to stop re-electing the same dumbasses.

We re-elect them election after election, so we approve of this stuff. And we should probably not.

@matt5sean3 well most importantly keep in mind that bureaucracy is about individual employees trying to maintain their relevance so they can keep getting paid for what they do.

Whether it is about submission of information or being a pain in the ass is really secondary. It's about that person at that keyboard trying to remain relevant and keep their job.

@rticks@mastodon.social well that's my point, to call out the undefensible, and I sure wish more people on this platform would join me.

@taylorlorenz @caseynewton

@MugsysRapSheet well think about it this way, consider the design of the mission.

Why were they ditching the booster in the Gulf instead of having it return to land so that it could be reused? Why didn't they even open the possibility for making the ship orbital?

Everything about this mission was designed with the expectation that the rocket was going to explode.

Everything about the applications to the FAA, all of the notices sent out to marine traffic, the decision not to try to land the booster, all of it.

Again I'm sorry that you didn't see these reports ahead of the launch, but that just means you need better news sources. Because it wasn't a secret, and if you need evidence, just look at the design of the mission.

If SpaceX really thought this lunch was anything approaching the final, operational rocket that it would have tried to reuse the booster. They didn't because they knew it wouldn't be from the beginning.

@Ghandralph @carlysagan

@_9CL7T9k8cjnD_ I got a chuckle about your post grouping people based on grouping people
@DamienMarieAtHope