... you're posting a podcast titled "CitationS Needed" that's clearly trying to pass its self off as famous YouTuber Tom Scott's "Citation Needed" (no plural) and it features Trump supporter, Glenn Greenwald (his fall from grace and later support of Trump is well documented, up there with Michael Moore, and Matt Tabili).

https://link.motherjones.com/public/35592388

It's pretty sad that this is your idea of media literacy - name swapped podcasts and deadbeat Trump supporters.

Who did I present as evidence again? A small news agency known as Reuters? ...and your idea of media litteracy is - a podcast pretending to be a more famous podcast.

Those aren't Australian universities, what are you even on about? China doesn't even have YouTube.

...also none of them are recent.

Here you go: Chinese censorship on Australian Universities, 2021, by Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinese-censorship-surveillance-found-australian-universities-rights-group-2021-06-29/

You know... The actual topic... from somewhere actually relevant.

The left should just maintain the spending set by the previous rightwinger - that way they can actually DO some spending on services whilst aiming to creat a step staircase graph - showing an escalation every time the rightwing get into office.

Right now we see only rightwingers get the funding they want, whilst services get continuous cuts, we need to see leftwing spending to create a staircase graph that can easily be blamed on right wing leaders.

Heat is energy though and being small creatures they are more subject to energy loss, or gain depending on the environment - so on days lower than their body temp they are making energy gains when laying in the sun.

You know a song is doing it when there's sounds of swords in there.

Try Venice Ai, free to use, won't try to censor your topics. Still just a chat bot though (although I think it does image generation too).

I think less restrictive AI that are free, like Venice AI (you can ask it pretty much anything and it will not stop you) will be around for longer than ones that went with restrictive subscription models, and that eventually those other ones will become niche.

New technology always propagates further the freer it is to use and experiment with, and ChatGPT and OpenAI are quite restrictive and money hungry.

...and this is why women don't take as much interest in sports.

Da!

Has nothing to do with international politics or government diplomacy...

... it's coming from the universities themselves, because they're run as private businesses already, and they service the needs of international students as their primary income.

Which means some censorship of Chinese political history. Eg. Tianamen.

When do you think they did all that research? Like, are we talking the 1960s? 1990s? 2000s.

...and when do they go "yep! That's all the options!

Or do you think this research is just an ongoing and constant cost? Is so they've hardly "decided" there's no research to do up there - and it's too expensive... Like if they're constantly looking into it, that's hardly making a decision.

So yeah, I think I'm seeing gaps in what you're saying. They don't have some machine that simulates and calculates all possible methods of survival on the moon and costs them using mldern parts every year.

NASA is quite the bureaucracy, and has even gone through spates of firings and under fundings over the year - so I just think you're venerating an ideal of them being absolutebin their rigor that just not there.

Maybe they've looked at some options, not others, but I don't think they've researched and costd or been creative with it in a long long time.

Also what I've said would be relatively cheap compared to what China and Musk have looked into and decided is viable so to say such a small plan is impossible, that they've done the research on such options, and it mustn't work, or be worth while... Well, I think you must just want to criticize and venerate NASA' genius. Where as I suspect for lots of people - probably since the mid 80s - it's just been a job. Work.

Work directes by each administration, mostly towards investing in observation and research of space phenomena and data. Longer term projects, and ongoing maintenance. Their drones haven't been that great although they have landed plenty - I think they've ALL been for research, and never any aimed at construction or lasting survival.

Anyways your views have limits your imagination is against some ideas, it's presumptuous. I get it. That's fine. I just think most of what would could be trying doesn't get looked at because it's not within the scope of NASAs current aims and goals.

...which are mostly now outsourced to corporate America. It's not some house of innovation, it's not the same thing ot was in the 1960s. I think they've now given multiple billions to Musk and Bezos through SpaceX and Amazon Blue, and that speaks to NASAs current viewpoint on in-house experimentation and creativity.

Government institutions are always a product of their age, and in this era, NASA is controlled by the demands of Capital, not hope for humanity or what's possible - innovation and research into capabilities has been increasingly delegated, outsourced as too expensive, and that's sad.

Scientists and researchers in the modern economy can no longer stay places that give them the freedom to look into options, and must also go where the money is - which is also sad.

As economic wealth gaps in society increase, and industry grows wealthy, making the eich get richer, human capital, hope, creativity, gets crushed. The needs of Capital and the capabilities and freedoms of the richest over the poorest increase exponentially.

So we have people luke Musk and Bezos flexing in competition, business people and the wealthy, rather than actual scientists and researchers - and it's a problem of this era of wealth inequality, and will likely continue to be.

If they've decided there's no research to do up there, and it'd be too expensive.... Then why would they be looking at every option for how it could be done?

If they decided there's not reseach value - they WOULDN'T bother looking at options for living on the moon... Because they don't see value in doing so.

So your argument conflicts with its self.

Excellent use of this sub! Excellent!👌

Looks like ginger, tastes like Turnip.

But we already dismantled academic freedom to stop it criticizing China!

Do they kill them, then throw them out the window? Is there a height requirement? Because if they just throw them out - there's a chance they'd survive.

.... and is it translation thing, because I feel like balconies are probably more common, but maybe they just say window still so we all know the government did it? Idk.

Well, it's not an ad, I have nothing to do with Venice AI other than having found it the other day and found that it's far less restrictive as a language model than ChatGPT.

But also not needing a login, or to pay for anything.

Also, the topic of the comic is AI models. So I don't know what you're on about there.

I mean, there's currently a space race to colonise the moon. Musk wants it to be a refueling station for Mars trips, China has a three phase plan (and it's done one phase, scouting) to colonise it (the ILRS).

...so nah, I don't think NASA has even really been considering it.

And you can tell they used the AI to solve some physics shit. Like, that probably took a lot of data management and setting up the models and what not - but the prize is for PROGRESSING the field of physics.

... it's not for like, how good you know physics, there's not like an exam and then some guy "knows physics the best"

...it's for moving knowledge forwards in a field.

Oh! They're pickles, not testicles!