Cancer might not be generally curable, but it is curable in the sense that many people survive cancer with treatment. And the increase of people who do survive is improving all the time.

I think that the gap is for people (like me) who don't understand what creating a medical treatment based in research looks like. I see a study like this and I think "oh great, they can just do this on people and then cancer is solved".

There's obviously a lot more complexity in applying research in practice, so it isn't that simple. Still, this kind of research clearly is leading to improvements in cancer care, even if it isn't completely cured every time.

"“Stability AI has copied more than 12 million photographs from Getty Images’ collection, along with the associated captions and metadata, without permission from or compensation to Getty Images,” Getty wrote in its lawsuit."

The hypocrisy of Getty Image is insane here, given it's dark past.

Not sure about the claims that blue ray's longevity may be less than cds and dvds. The technology greatly improved in the past decade (the article was written in 2010) and multiple sources saying the opposite. M-DISC brds seem to be capable of long term archiving.

There's a (not very scientific) test here : http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www...

It's not that simple from any point of view. First you cannot just replace a single SLS with 100 Electrons.

Correct. The math is actually about 500 electron launches.

That is to replace the cost of launching one SLS. If you include development costs cancelling out SLS now would easily save $4B per launch + 10B+ of dev costs.

I think the proposal would be to open up funding for both additional launches AND additional science missions. For the let's say $6B/year or so, you could do a huge amount.

True but you could with Starship. Or even if we ignore Starship. Falcon Heavy, Vulcan and New Glenn.

The only reason SLS is required is because the mission architects HAD TO use SLS in their architecture.

SLS in terms of what it does for it price would never be used in any architecture that tried to achieve the most with a given budget.

Yeah, I'm ignoring starship.

F9 Heavy can do a lot of good science missions, and many payload sizes are coming down. I'd personally include the Ariane stuff as well, James Webb launched on a Ariane 5 (around $200M per launch - so can get 20 launches on that or 10 launches + 10 new $200M science missions for one SLS).

This ignores the DEVELOPMENT cost of SLS which is mind bogglingly large as well as some of the ongoing just sustainment costs (also insane).

I'm sure in the long run the US would rather deal with Russia than with a China occupying anything Russian in Eastern Asia.

>they are afraid to stand up to their own government

I think you are not aware on how authoritarian regimes work and relates to those trying to oppose.

History has shown time and time again that they don't deal well with a million or more of their own citizens having a peaceful protest.

It's not like NATO to deploy forces there to fight the Russians. This is a more complex military, strategic and political issue with many implications.

In short, South China Sea is more important than the Black Sea

We can bash Samsung here, for this particular case, but is this something only Samsung does?

>15,517 tons

What is the source for this and how was this calculated?

The source is SpaceX's presentation in the video. How it was calculated ... Elon guessed?