thermous

my friends call me thermous, they say I’m smart but also insane. waiting to see if it’s the good or bad type of insanity. views may be from psychosis

[thermous @thermuus]

We will come to see Trump refusing to open up the straight of Hormuz as a masterclass political move in the future. It accomplished a few things

1. Proves that International Law is fake and since WWII it’s been underwritten by the United States military

2. Europe is incapable of defending themselves and free rides off the us. It’s going to lead to a massive investment in their military and force the to address their welfare problems, likely creating the economic evidence that it wouldn’t work in the United States and a resetting of political parties in Europe

3. He is forcing all countries to choose a side, the United States or China. It will cause some fractures with traditional allies but will create stronger bonds with those who reaffirm their alliance with us.

4. He is creating the conditions for oil companies to heavily invest in Venezuela to ramp up production while creating the economic incentive for increased investment in production on American soil

5. He exposes China as a paper tiger. Not only have their military systems from radars to anti-ship missiles been exposed as fundamentally incapable of targeting our military, he shows how weak China is. If China attempts to invade Taiwan, what do we do? Fully embargo oil from reaching China and their military stops functioning in a few days. The current crisis will force China to drain reserves while also drastically increasing oils cost as their cheap gas from Iran and Venezuela is no longer available

The Iranian regime is secondary to all these goals. I’d imagine for this too, Mossad already has a government in waiting, they just need to finish killing a handful of people in power to allow the transition to take place

[Washington State DOT @wsdot]

WELCOME TO WASHINGTON, SOCCER FANS. Get acquainted with our state via this highly accurate and mostly-to-scale map.

[david friedberg @friedberg]

they’re not jobs if they’re not valued. they’re not valued if there aren’t customers out there willing to pay them for their great work. needing the government to “create” a job is tantamount to welfare and that level of welfare resolves these individuals to a dependency on the government and lack of economic mobility. and chains our people, collectively, to a more indentured future.

you may be well intentioned but you have, and always will, fail to see the destitute folly of government as a job creation engine.

i have tried to engage you on this topic, in good faith, with empiricism and reasoning, but you have only dodged my points and pivoted to some populist refrain about the importance of taxation and the evils of productivity-driven success.

i can only assume you’re dodging these truths because you and the rest of the politburo leadership have deemed the conversation unsafe speech and put your oligopoly at risk.

let’s leave it at that then.

perhaps if your ways get their day, we can all bask in the glories of the dark ages ahead.

[Dirty Texas Hedge @HedgeDirty]

Over 4000 workers just became millionaires by owning the means of production and the socialists are pissed

[Spencer Pratt @spencerpratt]

Saving LA - Phase III

[thermous @thermuus]

@SenWarren How do we tax AI?

[thermous @thermuus]

I’ve recently come to this realization about me. It’s an odd struggle at my job though because I know I need enough work to be challenged, engaged and pressure to be highly productive there but also have the energy to work in side projects as I have in the past. It’s a concept my boss and vp cannot understand. They don’t want to burn me out, but want to create the environment where I do the work of an entire team as I have in the past. I keep saying the way for that to happen is giving me more work which leads to no changes lol

[thermous @thermuus]

@nejatian How much of the savings will be reinvested into token budgets vs. new employees in America?

[thermous @thermuus]

@dampedspring It’s kinda wild how people can’t just say cool, I don’t agree with you but I understand and respect your views. People on both sides are incapable of understanding anything outside their echo chamber

[thermous @thermuus]

AI in the workplace makes it very clear who is and isn’t capable of critical thinking, problem solving and creativity. It’s most apparent for people in leadership positions.

Those who aren’t capable, many times in over their intellectual heads, outsource all their thinking to AI. Why? It’s better at those tasks than they are and they don’t enjoy cognitively demanding tasks. These people will also blindly believe anything AI says and assume a poc success means instant integration or deployment to production. If you challenge what an AI says or try to bring nuance to a conversation about it, they look at you like you’re retarded. They cannot fathom how something so much more capable than they are couldn’t be perfect.

While the other, much smaller cohort of people use AI less, but in more intentional and high leverage ways. Their results may not be immediate or as ground breaking which makes them look like laggards to most. In the long run though, they’ll come out on top because they use it to expand their capabilities and solutions they develop will actually work.

In the short term, they’ll former group will be the champions of organizations and seen as geniuses. That is, until consequences for their use of AI emerge or the RIO they promise wasn’t there. The latter group will come in, take the reins and lead companies to an AI future. Unfortunately, in many companies that won’t be possible. Those people will get pushed out by choice or force because their intellectual abilities make them look like heretics

However, a few companies will attract these heretics and emerge in 5+ years as the new leaders of industries

[ApoStructura @ApoStructura]

I don’t understand, I was reliably informed that datacenters in space were physically impossible

[Evan Ross @MrEvanRoss]

If you’re voting for Graham Platner, you don’t really have an issue with Donald Trump’s moral deficiencies; you have a problem with the fact that he’s not on your side.

[thermous @thermuus]

Who would’ve thought the leader nasa needed was a business man, not a career bureaucrat

[NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman @NASAAdmin]

Starting with some energy, and my inability to write brief updates, I am just extremely proud of the NASA crew, our industry, and our international partners. We are getting into a rhythm here at NASA. Earlier this year, setbacks put the Artemis II rocket back in the VAB for repairs, and we determined it was necessary to add another mission, Artemis III in 2027. Since then, we have unveiled the Ignition plans to build a Moon Base and nuclear-powered spaceships, launched a highly successful mission around the Moon, brought the crew home safely, and now watched the torch pass to Artemis III. There will be no shortage of major milestones to celebrate in the months ahead as we build the Moon Base and launch the Nancy Grace Roman telescope. I am beyond proud of the team and all the momentum and excitement around the space program.

I do want to take this moment to address two of the questions I have been seeing since the crew announcement.

Why are there no women assigned to Artemis III?

I have seen reactions ranging from disappointment to outrage. I have personally been to space twice with 50% female crews. My closest advisors and some of the smartest engineers I know are women. In our latest NASA leadership organization, nearly 50% of the Center Directors and Mission Directorate leadership are women. The last astronaut candidate class selected under this Administration was majority female because they were the best of the best, including one astronaut I previously went to space with.

In a world with so much controversy, I hope this can be a moment where we celebrate the astronauts selected, respect the integrity of the process, and recognize the extraordinary depth of talent across the entire corps. The crew selection does not involve any political appointees. The Astronaut Office assigns the crew that gives the mission the best chance of meeting its objectives, taking into account many factors, including the background and expertise of the astronauts, such as test pilot experience, development work on specific programs, and availability. For example, those raising this concern may not be aware of the pipeline of crews already preparing to launch to the Space Station, or those who have been undergoing lunar-specific training that would be a better fit for a future surface mission.

The Artemis III astronauts are experienced, qualified, and deserve to be celebrated for the mission they have been assigned, just as the crews that follow will be celebrated when their time comes. We have an extraordinary astronaut corps, and every mission and every crew is part of a larger campaign to get America back to the Moon and to build the future we all dreamed about as children.

What are the objectives for Artemis III if both landers will not be fully ready?

Coming off a highly successful lunar mission like Artemis II, it is not surprising that the bar is set high for Artemis III. I think it is important to understand how difficult and dangerous it is to land astronauts on the Moon. We have not done it in a very long time, and we want to draw from a past playbook for success. That means getting into a cadence of launching, learning, and rolling improvements into the next mission.

First and foremost, it is imperative for SLS to be flying with some frequency for operational currency and, honestly, safety. Earlier this year, it was very clear across NASA leadership that an additional mission was necessary in 2027. It is also imperative to gain interoperability data from rendezvous and docking with landers in Earth orbit. We do not need those landers that are still in development to be fully capable and certified for landing on the Moon on Artemis III, but we do need to test certain systems and controllability. Not to mention, we are moving quickly into a future where we do not require a single rocket to bring everything necessary for a mission to space, and as such, gaining experience with multi-launch campaigns and on-orbit assembly is directionally correct.

The Blue Origin test lander for Artemis III will incorporate many of the most important systems and subsystems that have not previously been operated by the provider, including ECLSS in a crew cabin, and other avionics. With SpaceX, they have demonstrated many of those capabilities continuously on Crew Dragon, but other controllability tests are important based on the negative-X axis acceleration that will be necessary when Starship undertakes the TLI burn to the Moon with a docked Orion.

After Artemis III, we will learn a lot and roll in further improvements, be that hardware, software, or procedural updates, as both providers undertake end-to-end uncrewed demonstrations to the surface in 2028, in advance of Artemis IV, where NASA astronauts will finally complete the grand return to the Moon.

As I said in my remarks yesterday, when Gene Cernan left the lunar surface on Apollo 17, he said, “We leave as we came, and, God willing, we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.” We are returning, and we are doing so with the fire carried forward from Apollo, the lessons learned from Artemis II, the crew of Artemis III, and all those who will follow. NASA will send the very best crews for the right missions. If the composition of our astronaut corps and our latest class of candidates says anything, it is that we have exactly the talent required to get the job done.

Godspeed Artemis III, and all those who will follow.

[thermous @thermuus]

@NASAAdmin @SciGuySpace Thank you for making updates like this, being honest and open with the people. It’s refreshing

[thermous @thermuus]

All the people who say Trump is a dictator and fascist and destroying our democracy sure seem to dream about authoritarian power! You can’t baselessly say shit like this and claim you’re the morally righteous good guy

She wants to punish people she doesn’t like for power

[*Walter Bloomberg @DeItaone]

WARREN CALLS TO BLOCK SPACEX IPO

Sen. Elizabeth Warren urged the SEC to halt SpaceX’s IPO, citing governance risks, Elon Musk’s control, and potential foreign—especially Chinese—investment concerns. She also highlighted SpaceX’s role as a U.S. defense contractor.

Despite the letter, the IPO process is expected to continue, with pricing and trading set this week. The SEC has already reviewed filings, and investors are viewed as aware of the company’s risks.

[thermous @thermuus]

@DeItaone What the fuck, how is this anywhere at all beneficial to the us?

[thermous @thermuus]

Guy is a top tier retard

price controls are bad but subsidizing climate change stuff is good?

Government money is price control. It allows companies to bring down prices only if they receive government money succeed.

Innovation isn’t incentivized with free money

[Andy Masley @AndyMasley]

I basically think the average voter is pretty wrong on:

1) Nuclear power (it's good)
2) Foreign aid (we spend very little on it and should spend more)
3) Climate change (a majority say they're not willing to have any additional amounts of their tax money spent on climate. The national average willingness to pay for things that help with climate is ~$300 per year)
4) Immigration (I think it's broadly good across the board, and definitely good to get more high skilled immigrants specifically)
5) Price controls in general (bad!)

I'd like governments to patiently nod along to voter concerns but quietly approve more nuclear, spend more on foreign aid, pay way more on climate, and allow at least more high skilled immigrants. I just flat out think it's wrong for politicians to have 1-1 similar views to the median voter and sometimes they need to diverge.

[thermous @thermuus]

@AndyMasley So price controls are bad but subsidizing an industry, climate change stuff, is good? Spending more on it is a form of price controls because it allows companies to bring down prices without incentivizing innovation because wonky those who receive government money can succeed

[thermous @thermuus]

@saeverley Just wait till these jobs are all non-union, highly paid with stock options and performance bonuses. It’s going to stir up some crack pot ideas of why those things are terrible

[thermous @thermuus]

I could’ve sworn the socialist said data centers would cause Americans to have fewer jobs and big tech is trying to kill blue collar jobs, not expand them

[Engineering at Meta @Meta_Engineers]

Today we're announcing America's Workforce Academy (AWA), the largest private-sector commitment to the skilled trades in American history, beginning with a $115 million commitment in the first year alone.

This cost-free program supports all participants while they learn and then guarantees a job for all graduates in high-demand fields such as electrical work, mechanical systems and plumbing. Every graduate will be guaranteed a job on a Meta construction site.

Learn more: https://t.co/xaTR2MFudD

[thermous @thermuus]

@Meta_Engineers Yo what? Everyone told me data centers would cost Americans jobs or wouldn’t lead to sustained employment. How can you guarantee jobs for people when everyone in the democratic party said they will take away jobs?