> how many segregation categories to you create before it becomes all meaningless
Considering the fact that most women's leagues barely get any mainstream attention as is, I think any further fragmentation of sports isn't going to be sustainable.
Also, ignoring the commercial and entertainment aspect of sports, it's just really hard to organize local leagues if they only serve a small portion of the population. Like, even in a large metropolitan area, how many transgender people are there? Of those, how many are interested in a particular sport? Of those, how many are interested enough to form a club?
The problem arises because Trans people in the west (ironically) insist on a binary definition.
Here in Pakistan, trans people have fought for (and gained) the right to NOT be part of the binary system; so here we have 'M' for men, 'W' for women and 'X' for trans people. (Homosexuality is still illegal, btw)
Or to make it more explicit, the tagline 'trans women are women' would be considered transphobic here, because women is considered to be synonymous with cis women, but they are trans, they earnt the right for that X in their sex column.
It's not like we are a bastion of trans rights here, so the issue of bathrooms ( they are required to have their own, iirc, but I doubt compliance is prevalent) and sports (haven't heard anything about trans people in sports) hasn't arisen yet.
I feel trans people in the west will have to come to the same realisation that their trans counterparts in the east have; the binary definition is not fit for purpose.
> Tesla’s TeraFab has launched a talent war in Taiwan via job postings seeking senior chip experts (Process Integration Engineers) with over 10-years of experience, media report, adding its 2nm fab plan aims directly at TSMC. Chip engineers are already in short supply in Taiwan – like nearly everything chip related – and industry insiders worry the ‘Musk Halo Effect’ will draw local talent.
> Given that several companies make advanced chips, but no companies have ever made fully reusable rockets or achieved SpaceX scale, I think Starship is harder, but we shall see.
> Terafab will technically be two fabs, each making only one chip design. This greatly simplifies process flow and allows more linear, adjacent movement of the FOUP.
> A super high production rate allows us to test very quickly what steps can be deleted, simplified or sped up, even after the design is fixed. Current fabs are extremely conservative, operating on rigid historical heuristics, which are mostly, but not all, correct.
> Anything that is a rate limiter at the machine level means that machine will be redesigned, unless already at limit of physics.
> Having new iterations of a chip design be produced every day in the research fab (with <7 day lag) means being able to try out many high risk, high return ideas.
> Etc
> In any event, there is no other way to reach extreme scale, so either we make Terafab or we will be stuck at the ~20% chip/memory output growth per year of the current industry.
and here is a reply countering this that might provide some insight:
> First of all, you can’t turn iterations for 6-8w at 2nm, there is 1k+ steps, can’t speed up dep or EUV any further
> “I’ll just delete steps”. Those steps are ruthlessly optimized in surface of reducing defect density and boosting yields - which is critically important with this type of capital intensity
> Even TSM took 3y to ramp 2nm and that is with essentially a monopoly on the talent base to pull it off +40 years of accumulated know-how and recipes
> This is quite literally impossible. Better off spending that capital on prepays for capacity
At this point, just accept electric motorcycles/scooters are a distinct category that you'd like to accept and promote, and get rid of the vestigial pedals.
In my country, our govt is promoting e-cycles, and they are about ~ USD 1,000, after being imported from China. They have similar specs to these 'bikes' (range-wise) and I think they are better vehicles, both in price and in utility.
No need to add fake pedals or create a useless 'bike' frame when people are earning for a scooter/motorcycle. Create easier licensing/registration options and you will see adoption rise for the vehicles people truly want.
I don't get what you mean, electric scooters are already a thing? At least in most countries in Europe they are classified the same type of vehicle as pedal-assisted e-bicycles and are capped at 25km/h and can ride in the bike lanes. If they go faster they are classified as full motorcycle and have to ride on the road with the cars and requires a license and a license plate (regardless if electric or non-electric).
Pedal-assisted is very much not a vestigial category, plenty of people want to get exercise and not just ride a scooter. On top of that they massively increase the range of the bicycle and the bicycle is still usable when the battery runs out.
I've been annoyed by this as well for a while. I have a non-electric cargo bike but I don't care if others have pedals or not. I'm more scared of a bakfeit mum zooming through at 25km/h than a lightweight Chinese-style moped going slower than that. Regulating who can go where by speed and weight would make much more sense than creating all these arbitrary categories in my opinion.
Reminds me of an acronym that defines this sort of behaviour: COIK.
What is COIK? well everyone knows what COIK is, no need to bother explaining.
COIK is 'Clear Only If Known.' Did you really have to ask me about such a simple thing? Now run along.
____
There is so much assumed knowledge that writing guides becomes a matter of how simple you have to go, before you start insulting the reader's intelligence. (A computer is a magic box that goes DING!)
If you writing a guide, do you explain what a terminal is and where to find it? Or do you presume they know what it is and start sharing command lines? Is setting a minimum knowledge bar acceptable or are you showing your bias?
> It's absolutely insane that this @nytimes article would quote Doug Loverro saying "I was not firm enough in pushing what I should have pushed" when in fact the reason he abruptly left NASA in May 2020 (after just 6 months on the job) was that he was caught providing illicit inside advice to Boeing regarding the Human Landing System contract during the blackout period, despite which Boeing's entry was so poor it was withdrawn. How much harder could he have pushed?
> It gets even crazier.
> The article also quotes Douglas Cooke, who oversaw the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA from January 2004 until September 2011, and who is thus directly responsible for Constellation's abject failure, cancellation, the debacle of the Ares I-X rocket, and the origins of the SLS program, and who as recently as late 2021 was still advocating for a retvrn to the Constellation architecture (https://x.com/jeff_foust/status/1448008434478108676).
> Dan Dumbacher rounds out the trio of former NASA executives brave enough to go on the record, as the Deputy Associate Administrator of Exploration Systems Development from October 2010 until July 2014, ensuring this article quotes exclusively from former NASA leaders who have proven beyond doubt they cannot run a rocket development program, and who, having spent 20 years and $100b on their own failed system that somehow forgot to develop the lander, are now throwing stones at SpaceX for spending less than $3b (along with $10b of their own money) and having developed a rocket that's roughly 100x cheaper and 4x more powerful than SLS in less than 1/4 of the time.
> I don't want to hear from Loverro, Cooke, or Dumbacher unless it's a detailed explanation of how, exactly, NASA managed to screw up SLS as badly as they did. Perhaps they can ask for an internship at Starbase to get the elite program management exposure and experience they so evidently lacked when the nation entrusted them with the future of the light cone?
> According to public disclosures, none of these former NASA officials, who now work as independent consultants, receive money from Boeing. And yet whenever their opinion is solicited, they seem to advocate for mission architectures that support Boeing's proposals, Boeing's contracts, and Boeing's interests, despite NASA's own Office of Inspector General finding over and over and over again that Boeing and NASA's program management have collaboratively presided over an extremely expensive comedy of errors.
> Not just expensive - as I have now warned for many years - corrosive to US technological dominance and security, as China moves decisively towards the Moon.
looks like there has been infighting among former NASA employees about who is responsible for the decline.
> To assemble what would become one of the most important parts of Elon Musk’s Crew Dragon spacecraft, the docking system that would attach it to the International Space Station, a couple of SpaceX engineers in 2013 purchased mountain bike shocks from an online cycling shop. They bought the rest of the parts from McMaster-Carr, a sort of Home Depot for industrial tools and materials and dubbed their creation the “McDocker."
> NASA’s engineers were perplexed that SpaceX would even go through the trouble of building a docking system on its own. The space agency had been working to design one for more than a decade, in partnership with Boeing, and NASA had offered it to SpaceX for free. Docking with the space station was a perilous task, and NASA was confident its system would work safely. All SpaceX had to do was install it.
> At other companies, such a thought would likely have been laughed at. A young engineer was going to improve on NASA’s design? Why even bother?
> When their prototype was finished, Matthews and Western showed it to Mark Juncosa, one of Musk’s most trusted engineers. Unlike some at the company, who shied away from dealing with Musk directly, Juncosa was unafraid of the boss. He told Matthews this was something Musk would want to see and that they should go show him the prototype that instant. Without an appointment, they rolled the McDocker over to Musk’s cubicle and asked him to take a look.
> Musk studied it intensely, pulling and pushing on the docking ring, while rubbing his chin. After just a few minutes, he said, “Yep, let’s do this.” There were no deliberations. No consultations with other engineers. No memos or meetings. Musk liked what he saw and simply made the decision to go.
> NASA was incredulous that SpaceX was rejecting its soft capture design and attempting to build something on its own.
> To be assigned to fly on SpaceX, then, was at best a dead end, many in the astronaut corps believed — because those astronauts would never fly. It might even be a death sentence —because if SpaceX did fly, the thinking was, “If they don’t kill you, you’ll be lucky,” Hurley said. “There were probably five people in the entire agency that thought we’d be successful.” SpaceX would treat you like cargo, Hurley was told. You’d be little more than a “biological payload.”
You create, as a form of entertainment for the masses, an event for peak athletes to display their talent...by quirk of biology that means men.
You create a women's category to let them have their own entertainment niche.
You have in fact segregated sports, by gender, or sex, or whatever you want to call it.
Now there exist individuals who challenge the boundaries of this segregation. What do?
The realpolitik answer would be to segregate these individuals into yet another niche.
Of course the question arises, how many segregation categories to you create before it becomes all meaningless?
reply