Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture
 =?UTF-8?B?ZGVzaWduZXI/?=
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 01:34:43 +0000
Organization: Rocksolid Light
Message-ID: <c139608808c220d3b36717a131924999@www.novabbs.org>
References: <86jzf4829c.fsf@linuxsc.com> <lm2vj6Frf3oU1@mid.individual.net> <vdi0t5$2u3af$1@dont-email.me> <vdkp1g$3ed1r$6@dont-email.me> <vdkt00$3in73$1@dont-email.me> <vdl4ok$3jhjh$6@dont-email.me> <vdlk9g$3kq50$4@dont-email.me> <vdmq7e$3re5q$2@dont-email.me> <vdobe8$5cna$1@dont-email.me> <vdpad7$agqd$1@dont-email.me> <vdqvmf$mv5f$1@dont-email.me> <vdru7f$resc$1@dont-email.me> <vds087$rp06$1@dont-email.me> <vdtprc$16lu8$3@dont-email.me> <95f39b635da10c847f08be71581e3165@www.novabbs.org> <T4GMO.5508$Aty4.829@fx03.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="897507"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="o5SwNDfMfYu6Mv4wwLiW6e/jbA93UAdzFodw5PEa6eU";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$rlxa4/8kgFwGcNQ6WsHFHuiWvSrmUd5fp5U7npVKX8p1YyXvLxxfy
X-Rslight-Posting-User: cb29269328a20fe5719ed6a1c397e21f651bda71
Bytes: 3023
Lines: 33

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 0:39:15 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes:
>>On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 10:47:08 +0000, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/10/2024 20:24, Brett wrote:
>>>> Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Here is what Sabine Hossenfelder thinks of modern physics, and she makes
>>>> money promoting physics to people on YouTube.
>>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/cBIvSGLkwJY?si=USc2fHsaWTJMSDSt
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sabine Hossenfelder is quite a good commentator, and I've seen many of
>>> her videos before.  Her points here are not new or contentious - there
>>> is quite a support in scientific communities for her argument here.  We
>>> have arguably reached a point in the science of cosmology and
>>> fundamental physics where traditional scientific progress is unavoidably
>>> minimal.  Basically, we cannot build big enough experiments to provide
>>> corroborating or falsifying evidence for current hypothetical models
>>
>>Based on the success of Webb--we can, we just don't have access to
>>enough money to allow for building and shipping such a device up into
>>space. Optics-check, structure-check, rocket-check, where to put it-
>>check, telemetry and command-check.
>
> An article in this week's Aviation Week and Space Technology noted
> that the starship will be able to boost a payload that masses
> thirty times the Webb for less cost than the Webb launch.

I was counting on Starship in the above.
I was only complaining about the "can't" part.
Every piece of engineering is go--as long as someone will pay for it.