If you actually read the article, you'll see that the argument is that, since the year 2000, it has (as of 2024) broadly become easier to vote. But:

"The South, with its history of slavery and Jim Crow laws, has long lagged behind when it comes to voting access. The CEIR data shows that, although some states have slowly started expanding options for voters, generally it is still the most difficult region for voters to cast a ballot."

And it's only gotten worse since. I strongly suggest you do some cursory research in the future before making comments like this.

(Also from NPR: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/05/1235521824/voter-turnout-race... )

The best explanation I've heard is from a PV installer. He said, "Every try to get a suntan standing up?" Seems you lose too much sun exposure to make it worthwhile.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49761719

Points: 6

# Comments: 3

As to reaching 800+ Celsius: This is a solved problem on Earth because we have an effectively unlimited supply of oxygen and fuel. Neither of these conditions is true on Mars, unless you count the (very toxic to humans!) perchlorate in the soil. Extracting potable water from Martian soil would be a non-trivial task just in terms of energy needs, much less the task of making the water safe to drink.

The radiation issue is a bigger deal than you let on. I did not know about Ramsar. It's interesting! But this is a town of only 2000 with people who may have adapted to its higher levels of background radiation over generations. Our hypothetical Mars colonists will not have that luxury. And Ramsar has, on average, "only" 10x more radiation than we have on Earth -- still only 1/5th what we'd have on the surface of Mars.

I'd also point out that you seem pretty blase about the long-term risks of radiation. If we're talking about real colonization, we have to consider the risks of literal, multiple lifetimes of radiation -- not just how it might affect an average person over the course of a few years or decades.

> The idea of trying to just work out everything at home, and then have everything go perfectly is what I would call the meme

I apologize if it seems like I'm saying we need everything worked out. That is a miscommunication on my part. But we need some working prototype of what could work -- which we don't. We've never even succeeded in building a self-sustaining closed system on Earth! Where it should be easy! Because it's actually really really hard! And the craziest part is, literally no one is even trying!

If we can't make a self-sustaining closed system work here there is no reason to believe we could do it on another planet. I know SpaceX is everyone's favorite model of "go fast and break stuff", but there's many reasons why that does not apply to space colonization. The obvious first reason is that blowing up a rocket is not as serious as accidentally killing a space colony.

Another is the (imo mistaken) belief that rocked design is analogous to space colonization. I'd hazard that space colonization is maybe 1000x more difficult than designing a real big rocket -- which is admittedly very hard! But there are a bunch of extremely important and difficult questions that advocates for space travel -- maybe even you -- seem totally uninterested in solving and hand-wave away.

Resources will be scarce on a space colony, at least for the foreseeable future. What if a baby is born with a pathology that makes their care too expensive? Will they be left to die? Or will they have a right to live indefinitely? Will their parents be forced to get sterilized -- or have future fetuses aborted -- if they are at risk of producing more children with the same pathology? Who decides who gets sent home? It's simple if someone has an extreme psychic break with reality. But what if it's someone with severe depression? Or borderline personality disorder? Will the colony get to vote people off the island like the ancient Greeks sent people into exile? And what if a trip home might kill the person in question -- a particular risk for people who are born on Mars and never experienced gravity on Earth? Do future colonists have the right to give people an effective death sentence for being mentally ill?

These are obviously problems that exists here on Earth! But the consequences are entirely less dire here. A person with severe schizophrenia can live on the streets here in the US and pretty much no one gives a shit. But if this happens on Mars, and that person is using resources that are already in short supply (think of a world where there's only enough water to shower for a few minutes a week, or to subsist on only a bare minimum number of calories), people are going to care a lot. What happens next?

Or you could use hypothetical a nuclear power power plant that would be incredibly expensive to build, ship, run and maintain on a foreign planet.

You were right about the radiation! Kind of. There's "only" 50x more radiation on Mars' surface than on Earth's. You said this was less than what astronauts on the ISS are exposed to. How is that a meaningful comparison? You're talking about people living their entire lives in this environment, and presumably making babies who grow into adolescents and adults, all the while threatened by an amount of radiation we have no idea if a human child could live through.

The atmosphere on Mars is so thin that exposure to it will kill you. The level of radiation is so high that exposure to it will kill you, unless you lived essentially your entire life underground or in a bunker. The cold temperatures will kill you. The soil has perchlorate in concentrations that will kill you. There's basically nothing to do there -- no walks outside without a space suit, no nature to look at, no living beings (except perhaps soil microbes that would be instantly destroyed in the process of extracting water) -- nothing more available there than here on Earth except looking at the stars and dying. [1]

Every argument I've seen people make for colonizing Mars in the near term has been emotional. The arguments are all the more emotional for insisting that they are rational. We have no idea if we could grow food in a closed system indefinitely, or reproduce in space or on another planet, and the amount of research going into these literally existential questions is close to zero. Nor do the billionaires who claim to be obsessed with getting us to be a multi-planet civilization seem to give a shit about them. Colonizing Mars isn't a plan; it's a meme.

Finally, there's no thought given to how to deal with inevitable social problems that will arise if there are large (1000+) populations away from Earth: what to do with people who have psychological breakdowns? how do you prioritize if more people need to be sent home than there's space for on a return rocket? what are your responsibilities toward colonists who need expensive permanent care? what if they can't survive Earth's gravity due to physiological changes from growing up off-planet? What if an entire space colony will never be self-sustaining and they need to be supported with expensive shipments of food and supplies from Earth forever -- who will pay? Or will we?

Look, if you want to colonize Mars or other planets because you think it's a cool thing to do, at least that's an honest, personal opinion. But if you think putting a ton of resources into going to Mars anytime soon is a good investment -- when we aren't even mitigating an ongoing climate disaster here on Earth, the one environment to which we are exquisitely adapted and which is non-existent literally anywhere else in the known universe -- then you are fooling yourself.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/26/nasa-curiosi...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

This is nonsense. A trip to Mars would take a minimum of 6 months and could only be resupplied every 2 years. Mars has a tiny amount of water, virtually no atmosphere, and receives 700x more radiation than Earth. Mars colonists would be forced to spend virtually all their time underground working hard to keep themselves alive, being bored senseless because there's nothing to do for fun (besides electronic entertainment, I suppose), or both.

Keep in mind that the Apollo program only gave us about two weeks of human time spent on the moon's surface total. In no way were we prepared to go to Mars after Apollo. We couldn't have managed a round trip around Mars, much less landing there and creating a permanent colony.

The idea that we would have "parallel civilizations" not just on Mars, the easiest other planet to inhabit, but "throughout the solar system" is delusional. Are we talking about also colonizing Venus, a planet where the surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead, the wind travels at hundreds of miles per hour, and the atmosphere is composed of sulfuric acid?

The sad (?) reality is that humans evolved to live on Earth and if we ever permanently live outside Earth, it will in all likelihood be in a form no longer recognizable as human, whether it's due to our physical bodies being engineered to withstand the rigors of life on a foreign planet or because our consciousnesses have been somehow uploaded to machines.

I cannot enough recommend the book A City on Mars. It's written by two giant space nerds who are nonetheless clear eyed on the many, many, many challenges to creating permanent space settlements of any kind.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/125084292-a-city-on-m...

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/18xmkp0/a_city_on_ma...

Depends on the context. If they are to work around human beings, particularly in the home, then they must be safe... to work around humans.

If a humanoid robot hits a human being, knocks one over, or even falls down on top of one -- especially a child, who is more fragile and whose movements are unpredictable -- then the industry as a whole faces a huge setback. Just look at what happened when a "self-driving" Uber ran over and killed a pedestrian in Arizona.

Short of becoming the Luigi of the environmental movement, there is nothing an individual can do. You have to take part in some kind of ongoing collective action. This can include joining a campaign against the oil and gas industry, going door to door for candidates who will reverse climate change, or engaging in direct action against environmentally destructive projects -- or even all three at the same time.

Trying to go it alone is pointless. At best, you'll go down a rabbit hole of becoming the most virtuous consumer alive. At worst, you'll be spend all your time mad-posting on social media.

I personally believe that strategic tariffs should be used to protect our national interests, including providing meaningful employment.

This administration has no interest in strategic tariffs. Instead, they are made overbroad (50% on everything from Canada vs, say, cheap imported steel) and they are made and removed capriciously (tariffs on English whisky dropped after King Charles' visit to the White House).

If Trump really wanted to bring your dad's factory job back, he'd specifically target whatever industry he was working in AND ideally spend the tariff money boosting that industry. This is precisely the strategy countries like Japan used to reach first world status.

Instead Trump uses tariffs like a cudgel -- much closer to what the XKCD comic depicts. There is no chance his tariffs will lead to your father's factory ever being reopened, as that would require, at the bare minimum, a tariff that investors know will stay in place for years, as opposed to one that could be lifted with the visit of a charismatic member of nobility.

Elon wasn't just involved with DOGE, he was responsible for it. And Elon said he would cut $2 TRILLION in federal spending before ultimately claiming just $110 billion in savings -- which the GAO found he lied about. Considering out budget deficit is about $2 trillion, even his inflated claims are a rounding error.

(To say nothing of the fact that a lot of it was NOT useless spending. For example, Elon ended a program to fund countries in Central America to stop the spread of screw worms. Now screw worms are projected to cost $1.8 billion in damage to Texas alone.)

> while Elon encourages reporting on X

Elon has a track record of banning journalists on Twitter / X, the everything app, when they criticize him. Literally the opposite of encouraging reporting on X.

> We need more "Elons", people like him are actually helping dig us out of this mess.

I would encourage you to start reading independent news sources and forming your own opinions, rather than uncritically believing everything people in power feed to you. Otherwise you end up saying things online that are trivially disprovable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/08/09/gao-repor...

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/flesh-eating-scr...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-mus...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49390193

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

Maybe you're not understanding what we're saying. There have been numerous comments remarking on flights that were delayed or canceled due to corporate decisions, which reduce to excess savings on (or insufficient investment in) maintenance and staffing. This has nothing to do with "better perks"!

Every dollar of profit is a dollar that could have been spent on maintenance and staffing, or god forbid, proactive investment in better systems and infrastructure. No one is saying that airlines should become non-profits. But I have a feeling three or four or five BILLION dollars in profits is too much.

This is like a statistics 101 question. Google says that Casio has sold over 100M F-91W's since 1989. Let's round down to an average of 2.5M a year, or 25M over the 10 peak years of the global war on terror (GWOT).

You named two terrorists who wore them. Let's say that's an understatement by 200X. Some quick math shows that the percent of terrorists who wore F-91W's is 400/25000000 = 0.0016% positive rate, or conversely a 99.9984% false positive rate. Not good!

Now I never actually took a statistics class, so maybe I got this question wrong. But it's obvious that using the possession of an F-91W as a sign of being a terrorist is a mistake.

I wouldn't be surprised that an airline lost money in one of the worst travel years of all time (due to Covid).

Cursory searching shows United made more than $3,000,000,000 in 2024. So even if 2025 was an unusually good year for them, it wasn't a complete anomaly. Just goes to show that when flights get delayed due to insufficient available crew or maintenance issues, it's a savings that's passed on to investors and the c-suite at the expense of consumers.