Was it NPR specifically, or your local NPR affiliate?

Keep in mind that "NPR" programming often consists of actual network programming, independent works distributed by NPR, and productions from either affiliated subnetworks (e.g., "MPR", Minnesota Public Radio, PRI/PRX, APM), and in cases individual affiliate stations (WBUR, WAMU, WNYC, WHYY, KQED, KOUW, KUTX, KCRW, etc.), or other noncommercial radio networks (e.g., Pacifica). And increasingly podcasting networks.

Using NPR's site search, the most recent story focusing on a specific ballerina's injury story is from 2017, on Fresh Air (WHYY) "From Injury To Recovery, A Ballerina Fought To Retire On Her Own Terms" <https://www.npr.org/2017/07/10/536434340/from-injury-to-reco...>. It's possible that that replayed more recently. Or that you're loosely anchored in time.

There's a story more closely matching your description, though focusing on gymnastics, in USA Today, March 2026, "How two painful sports stories underscore girls' unique injury risks" <https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2026/03/08/girls-great...>

- A small and specialised market.

- Numerous gatekeepers, each of whom might exert a veto (dancers, teachers, company directors, etc.).

- Highly subjective judging criteria, with benefits or limitations of alternatives not being evident possibly for a long time.

- A high level of highly-interdependent skills. A dancer's performance literally turns on her shoes, and a whole set of muscle-memory, training, technique, and expectations are based on a familiar product. Changing this is probably anxiety-producing.

- Careers are relatively short, lasting perhaps 10--20 years, rarely longer. Taking big risks on equipment may have low appeal.

Balancing all of this, if there does turn out to be some spectacular advantage to new kit, it's possible that change could happen rapidly. This has been the case elsewhere in the sports world. Shoes for runners, footballers (world or American, take your pick), swimmer's costumes, skiing equipment, etc., have all changed radically over the past 50 years (and were changing well before that). Ballet has strong traditions, but those might well bend.

If you're looking at this from a tech-adoption / tech-rejection / product-management hat, you might consider what the landscapes you're facing or contemplating look like relative to the ballet world, which conditions are similar or different. Small markets might be more resistant to change, though if there's fierce and unambiguous performance differentiation you might have an edge. Vetocracy is a concept gaining awareness in numerous disciplines. Highly-gate-kept or regulated fields tend to advance more slowly. Tightly-coupled systems evolve less quickly than loosely-coupled ones. Long run-times, careers, or organisational viability might allow for greater risk taking, or at least the opportunity for new entrants to launch trying different tools.

They have an excellent quality reputation, though new boots are spendy. Used show up occasionally.

A supernova peaks over the course of days, and fades slowly over months to years. They also remain static relative to the background stars, as do all astronomical phenomena outside our Solar System, even over the span of a day.[1]

Even a very-rapidly-peaking kilonova (neutron-neutron star collision) though they peak quite rapidly (short gamma-ray bursts, or SGBs, last about two seconds) have durable remnants lasting weeks.

The transient phenomena discussed here occur largely at the scale of a few seconds at most, often far less, and most move across a significant span of sky within that time.

More likely is that a meteor impact on the Moon (or other Solar System body) might be missed, but those are sufficiently small targets that interference such as we're discussing would not be a significant noise source. Space-based observation of, e.g., comet collisions with Jupiter or Saturn would eliminate LEO satellite noise entirely, though cosmic ray interference would remain a concern.

________________________________

Notes:

1. An object moving at 0.99c at the distance of the nearest star, 4 light years, would cover slightly less than 0.04 degrees per day. Much of the Universe is at somewhat greater distance than even this.

I do have a technical background, I write code. I've also been spending much of the past decade or two coming up to speed on things I'd paid less attention to in my near six decades on this rock: political theory, philosophy, and history. David Runciman, mentioned elsewhere in this thread, has been a significant part of that.

There is a code associated with governance, and that is law, along with regulation, constitution, and court practice (which may or may not include case law / common law, depending on the political tradition). Coming up with ways of making law itself clearer and in particular changes to it more apparent (as with revision control) could help in some regards, though my experience from the world of software is that complexity-management constrains complexity, and that the inevitable consequence of more capable complexity management is greater levels of complexity. Beware what you (or others) ask for.

I suspect that there are changes necessary at a more fundamental level, though even deciding on what the aims of that change should be is an open question: is liberal democracy a proper goal, or should we be looking at effective governance based on a changing set of conditions, constraints, and capabilities? There are numerous suggestions for electoral reforms (reduced voting age, increased voter restrictions, ranked-choice, and a whole host of others, see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform>). I'm particularly taken by the notion of sortition and how it might be applied. "If you can't choose wisely, choose randomly" has topped my list of most interesting reads for nearly two decades now: <https://aeon.co/essays/if-you-can-t-choose-wisely-choose-ran...>.

Other reforms would include finance (personal, business, government, political); economics; technology; social welfare; education; property rights and restrictions; informational autonomy (combining speech, privacy, and choice in numerous manners), etc., etc., etc.

I fear you're prematurely optimising based on misconceptions and ignorance.

I'm not claiming total knowledge, by a long shot. But I do believe my scope of consideration exceeds yours.

Iran's successes in the 2025 and 2026 conflicts would be within that premise.

Prior to 2025, and dating back to the mid-1980s, Iran and Israel have been engaged in a proxy conflict, but that also differs from the premise. In large part that's relied on the ability to inflict some pain on counterparties, but not necessarily by exhibiting technological superiority, and not to decisive effect on the part of either Iran or Israel for that matter. See: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_conf...>.

Rational thought processes and the current US administration aren't even worth mention, though I'll suggest that the failure of what were once thought to be at least partially resistant institutions such as the military establishment against executive idiocy is especially disheartening.

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48406174>

Unless HN mods want to add this as (another) regular recurring feature, it might be considered a dupe.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48613372

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

"The government" at the time, embodied by David Cameron, were not pushing for Brexit. It, and Cameron, pushed for a vote, but with the expectation that the referendum would be defeated.

Retrospective analyses and Cameron's own account make clear that he saw advantage in calling for the referrendum with the expectation that it would be defeated. Example:

Cameron chose to commit to a vote, not because the country’s population was clamouring for one but because a significant minority of his own MPs ... were demanding that he do so...

Naturally, Cameron was aware he was running a risk – after all, his best friend in politics, Chancellor George Osborne, told him so again and again. But he thought he would win the vote....

<https://ukandeu.ac.uk/why-david-cameron-called-the-2016-refe...>

This is true so long as client-side (desktop, mobile) memory management does not penalise high memory use.

I'm already taking the approach of killing off my largest browser processes regularly, and need to look at more targeted ways of managing memory. I'd really like to see the parent browser process as a lightweight manager over subprocesses such that it can persist (rather than leaking multiple GB of RAM over the course of days), to the point my entire user session falls over with stunning regularity.

I have a shell script (currently triggered manually, hopefully subject to further refinement) which kills off the ten top browser processes. I'll often run that in a shell loop of 10--20 iterations. It barely keeps things manageable, and system hangs/reboots are still far more common than I'd like.

The way to change behaviours is to change costs. This is where OS devs have a choice before them, and application and remote service / SaaS devs and project managers might eventually start feeling the pain.

One reason I favour HN over numerous other options is that the site doesn't absolutely pig out my browser session(s).

And that said, if anyone has tips on both revealing and managing memory usage in Firefox, I'm quite receptive.

Ukraine is the odd one out in that it has developed significant technological capabilities, largely with drones and anti-drone defences, and has active buyers for that tech.

Flip-side of cost is effectiveness, and it would be interesting to see real-world data on the accuracy, reliability, and longevity of Korean weapons systems in active combat. I suspect the Koreans are also anxious to see this given their own geopolitical situation and northern neighbour. The article doesn't go here either.

It does, correctly IMO, focus on the reliability of the US as arms supplier, given the increasing control over access as a political weapon of retribution and reward, potential "kill switches" in US arms, the limited total production capacity of the US, and particularly in light of the latter, stocks depletion and unavailability on the basis of capricious gallivanting into ill-conceived conflicts with little gain if not actually worsening its subsequent position, strength, and status.

The Koreas both have an extensive reliance on artillery. Seoul is within range of PRK batteries, Pyonyang not so much from ROK, but any invading forces would be. I suspect ROK counterartillery systems are well developed, and that given the effectiveness of drones in recent years and the likelihood PRK might rely on these that there are, or soon will be, effective countermeasures against them.

Antiballistic missile systems would also be useful for ROK. I know nothing of this, but find that there is a Wikipedia article on the topic: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_and_Missile_Defense>.

HN mods chose to employ my suggested title, which follows from HN guidelines and practices: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32949870> and <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>, most of the first six 'graphs following "In Submissions" pertaining to titles.

What's your argument here, if you don't mind?

With the sunset of POTS and twisted-pair copper wire, this is absolutely not the case.

At the very least, service continuation now requires 1) cellular masts with reserve power and 2) a charged cellphone (most of which have at best ~24h battery life), or 3) a directly-wired or fibre-based Internet access and 4) battery-backed VOIP or SIP system.

A POTS service had its own power supply, independent of mains, with battery back-up, and frequently ran for days even during widespread grid outages.