unceme

I worked at a coffee shop and 40% of my wage was tips. I wouldn't be able to afford to live otherwkse. Please tip your barista.

Tipping isn't really a social norm as much as it is a social imperative-- the food is considerably cheaper than it should be because you're expected to make up the cost difference in tips.

To be clear, this is marketing crap to gather investors. Pretty much all "space colonization" proposals are. I was just talking about the theoretical technical feasibility.

I mean, there's basically no good economic reason for any space colonization whatsoever, outside of potentially the asteroid belt. Neither Venus nor Mars have significant resources that aren't found in similar abundance on Earth, where extraction is orders of magnitude cheaper and easier. Tourism would be an industry, but it would almost certainly be an extremely niche business similar to OceanGate's Titanic visits, Blue Origin's launches, or stuff like Dear Moon. Rich people might pay very well to go visit Mars or Venus or the Moon but that pay certainly would not be enough to offset the trillions of dollars (yes, trillions) and decades that true colonization would take.

With that in mind, discussions of real space colonization are entirely theoretical and probably always will be, at least within our lifetimes. It is very conceivable that humans will land on Mars and maybe establish permanent research outposts there, on the Moon, or hypothetically Venus. But those would be far more similar to something like the ISS-- hosting a rotating crew of mostly astronauts and the occasional space tourist. I find it hard to imagine an economic case for anything more anywhere in the solar system within a reasonable span of time.

The theory is that since most of Venus' atmosphere is CO2 at this level, the breathable atmosphere of a human habitat is actually bouyant, which would make suspending a colony much easier.

Doing something like that on the scale of a research presence like the ISS is within the realm of current technology-- but you are right that doing so for a whole city is not technically possible at the moment-- nor is true space colonization in general, I would argue. There's a lot of unknowns and unsolved problems.

I don't wanna defend the guy but he did say floating colony, the atmosphere about 1 km up from the surface sits at earthlike temperatures and pressures-- astronauts would only need a breathing mask and some light skin protection as opposed to a pressure suit which is a major advantage.

If you're talking about standard security cameras usually the footage will get completely overwritten after afeew days unless there was an incident to prompt review of the footage-- and even then it usually gets deleted at some point. Its not like with social media data gathering where they're collecting all that information in order to build a personal profile of everyone-- security cameras just exist to review incidents that happen in the public realm and there's no real incentive for a public transit agency to track every single person that appears on their cameras.

There's cameras everywhere watching the road too if you really care that much and you better believe your car model and license plate is a much more reliable form of identifying information than a blurry face on a bus security camera.

That assumes the train is traveling at its maximum speed for the entire duration of the trip-- which is almost never the case, even in China. For a route that long with many many stops large portions running over rough terrain necessitating curves and grade changes the actual average speed along the route would certainly mean the average speed of the route would be much slower.

Ultimately, spending a tremendous amount of money embarking on an ultra-high speed rail route between the coasts-- which would certainly be one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects in human history-- would be a waste of time and money compared to almost any other rail project. All that money would be much better spent on high speed rail where it actually makes sense, and on conventional rail connecting every city in the US.

NY to LA will never be 14 hours with current or near future technology. Its 50 hours from Chicago to LA with the slow trains and while high speed rail is a significant improvement its not crazy enough to get speed increases like that.

Kate is great!