You know what, i’m in :) On my field, i’ll have a ship on every single square, so no matter where you aim, you score a hit :) And on your field, you just have 1 ship of 5 long, so i have only a 5% chance to hit :).

Do remember though, the game ends when all our ships are sunk.

So you will have to do 100 shots every round to win (covering every single square) While i just have to find your ship (with some basic strategies, i’d estimate not even needing 20 shot to do that), and then i win :).

… starting to get it? XD

you’re focusing so hard on how easy it is to hit a ship, that you forget the goal of the game: sink every ship.

If my entire playfield is ships, you’ll indeed hit with every single shots, but you’ll also need the maximum of 100 shots every game to ‘win’ XD.

Just so you know: the valuation of SpaceX has nothing to do with the space side of the company. If you look at their projected revenue, the rockets etc… are a footnote. but SpaceX acquired XAI, and literally all of this projected growth is SpaceX becoming the leading AI company in the next decade.

(and i wish i was joking, but i see everybody here wondering how a space company could possible grow that much, or be expected to. And the answer obviously is it can’t, and noone expects it to. But an AI company in this AI bubble, that people believe…)

Suppose we all did read the docs. How possible is it with the complexity of a modern system to really take literally everything in account, and understand the implications oof everything to keep your system safe? It’s great that it’s documented, but if security isn’t the default option, it will lead to issues, and everything has become so complex, that imo correctly managing everything is literally impossible… This is a systemic issue, not a user issue.

I haven’t seen it mentioned here yet, but software freedom conservancy is doing a fundraiser to bring bambulab to court, any donation from now till half july will be part of the fundraiser: https://sfconservancy.org/donate/

Current agricultural progress is mostly about needing as few people as possible for farming, not making enough food for everyone. It’s widely known there is plenty of food, the issues are social as to why some are still hungry, not technological.

And in the end, we’re on a finite planet, so whichever way you look at it, keeping increasing population numbers has to end somewhere, so the question is not does enough humans exist, but what is enough, and i think there are plenty of arguments thaht we’re overpopulating the earth already.

You’re quickly glossing over all the issues.

“human population has only been able to increase thanks to innovation”: and that’s a good thing? What would be wrong with a more manageable human population?

“If you want to go back to nature, by all means do.”: how? The world has advanced beyond that, it’s clearly not an option.

“the only way forward is through science and innovation”: if science & innovation is what you call forward, then obviously yes, but that’s just a tautology. What is your measure of “forward”? If it’s power over nature, advancements, … then for sure. If it’s respecting this earth and not long term ruining the entire planet… how sure are you about that?

“limiting roundup”: ah, an innovation that should be limited. What went wrong that it was globally used before we were sure enough about its side effects? How sure are you about all the current innovations that they don’t have similar issues? How sure are you about this bee superfood not having disastrous long term effects?

If you ignore all the issues with it though, innovation is incredible for sure!