Token Daily

As with many moves he makes, it is mostly about intimidation, not practical consequences. Maybe not even really targeted at Twitter specifically, but designed to warn anybody who speaks out that he will aggressively target them back.

1

luicaralex12 7 hs ago

And trump is the worst offender on Twitter such a Hippocrate

1

Caustic-Leopard Yesterday

As if trump cares about warnings. It's like warning a brick. Although most bricks are fine, unlike trump.

23

hew28 9 hs ago

trump is not smart enough to belong to an ideology he’s traumatized since he was a little kid, he suffers inferiority complex, one can tell in 1 minute when you hear him talk

1

Illimitible 5 hs ago

He’s smart enough to get into the most powerful office in the planet

1

Xeno_man 2 hs ago

That's a popularity contest. You don't need to be smart or even right to win an election.

1

hew28 4 hs ago

with a little help of his friends 🇷🇺

2

Saemika 11 hs ago

Most bricks do their job.

7

rdgneoz3 9 hs ago

And bricks don't shit all over things. They work with others to do their job.

8

Caustic-Leopard 11 hs ago

Trump technically does his job. Although a delivery guy chucking a package at a wall is also technically completing the delivery.

0

BenStillerIsntReal Yesterday

Clickbait title

34

Latter-Pain 4 hs ago

Appreciate this.

1

redditrasberry 7 hs ago

Was the title altered? It seems very moderate and in line with article content, which carefully explains various points of view. Not sure what is click bait about it.

0

CompSciSelfLearning 7 hs ago

Matt Rourke/AP President Trump has a new rallying cry in his escalating crusade against Twitter. As he put it in a tweet Friday: "REVOKE 230!" It's a reference to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law passed by Congress in 1996. It says online platforms are not legally responsible for what users post. Many say this protection enabled the creation of the modern Internet. But critics — on both the left and right — say it gives tech companies too much power at a time when they are essential to many peoples' lives. Trump seized on the once-obscure legal provision after wrangling with Twitter this week. The social media platform put fact-checking labels on some of his tweets that claimed, without evidence, that mail-in ballots were fraudulent. Trump then signed an executive order seeking to peel away the sweeping legal immunity social media companies and other online sites have long used as a shield against an avalanche of lawsuits. The movement to revoke those safeguards is increasingly becoming a bipartisan consensus, with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden even saying Section 230 should be scrapped. But experts caution that eliminating the legal protections may have unintended consequences for Internet users that extend far beyond Facebook and Twitter. Left and right criticize Section 230 — for different reasons Some Republicans, including Trump, accuse social media sites of muzzling conservative voices. They say undoing Section 230 would let people who claim they have been slighted sue the companies. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced a bill last year aimed at ending the legal protections for tech companies unless they agreed to an independent audit to ensure they were moderating content without political bias. Following Twitter's actions this week, Hawley promised to introduce new legislation to end the legal immunity for tech companies. "It's pretty simple: if Twitter and Google and the rest are going to editorialize and censor and act like traditional publishers, they should be treated like traditional publishers and stop receiving the special carve out from the federal government in Section 230," Hawley wrote on Twitter. Democratic skeptics of the law, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have other complaints. They say Section 230 has created a fertile environment for the rampant spread of online misinformation, harassment and abuse. They argue, if Section 230 is jettisoned, tech platforms like Google, Facebook and Twitter would have to do more to curb problematic content. "Section 230 is in extremely precarious straits right now," said Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute. "But both parties don't agree on why it should be repealed, which may become tricky for both parties to find consensus. If there is a proposal for a flat repeal, though, maybe both parties will just agree." Section 230: A Key Legal Shield For Facebook, Google Is About To Change Goldman and other experts interviewed for this story say the most likely outcome of a repeal of Section 230 is one that neither the left nor the right want to see: more censorship by major tech companies and potentially paralyzing other websites. "We don't think about things like Wikipedia, the Internet Archive and all these other public goods that exist and have a public-interest component that would not exist in a world without 230," said Aaron Mackey, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil liberties nonprofit. Without Section 230, experts argue, sites would have less tolerance for people posting their opinions on YouTube, Reddit, Yelp, Amazon and many other corners of the Internet. Law created to eliminate 'the moderator's dilemma' Back in the 1990s, when now-quaint-sounding companies like CompuServe, Prodigy and GeoCities were household names, the Communications Decency Act was passed to address what Mackey calls "the moderator's dilemma." At the time, if online service providers took a hands-off approach to what users posted — no matter how offensive or potentially illegal — they were in a better position legally than if they chose to remove content that was abusive or harmful, because doing so would make the companies look like publishers and open to the door to a wave of defamation lawsuits. Critics said online platforms had an incentive to ignore any obscene or illegal content posted to their pages. "Section 230 was designed to remove that dilemma, so a platform can choose to do nothing or actively engage and set their own rules," Mackey said. The law enshrined websites in a special legal category by considering them distributors, rather than publishers. That gave them immunity from lawsuits over online content, while letting them establish terms of services for what is permissible or not. There are some exceptions, however. Websites can still be held responsible for child pornography and the violation of federal criminal laws. In 2018, another exception was added to the law to hold websites like Backpage.com responsible for promoting sex trafficking and prostitution. More responsibility online, or greater censorship? Since President Bill Clinton signed the original law in 1996, countless people have gone to court over inflammatory comments or videos found on Facebook, Twitter, Google and other sites. But courts overwhelmingly have sided with the Internet companies. "If those lawsuits had a chance to succeed, we'd see thousands times those lawsuits," Goldman said. "Every time someone was aggrieved with Internet services, they potentially would have a claim and take it to court. Section 230 had kept that tsunami of complaints from hitting the courts." The tech industry, unsurprisingly, is fighting hard to preserve Section 230, said Jeff Kosseff, the author of a book about Section 230, The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet. "The major platforms came into existence because of 230," Kosseff said. "Without 230, their operations would have to be substantially changed." In particular, Facebook, Twitter and Google would likely become aggressive about removing content and may side more often with complaining users, Kosseff said. Mackey with the Electronic Frontier Foundation agrees. "It could create a prescreening of every piece of material every person posts and lead to an exceptional amount of moderation and prevention," Mackey said. "What every platform would be concerned about is: 'Do I risk anything to have this content posted to my site?'" Another possible ripple effect of repealing, Kosseff said, is making it more difficult for whatever company is hoping to emerge as the next big social media company. "It will be harder for them because they will face more liability at the outset," Kosseff said. Goldman with Santa Clara University Law School said rescinding Section 230 could reduce the number of online platforms that welcome open dialogue. Section 230 is "a statement by Congress that we can do a better job if we add in some additional protections for free speech." Goldman said. "Without it, a lot of things online we take for granted today will not work the way they currently work, and some things will no longer be available at all."

2

Silber800 10 hs ago

This is getting bad, so many articles you click and when you actually read them the title is so twisted or altered to make people upset or angry. News in 2020 be like. “Man dies with 2 others don’t call the ambulance” Meanwhile while the article says one was doing CPR and one was running to get a defibrillator.

8

indifferentmongoose Yesterday

Thanks, I shall ignore it

4

convery Yesterday

Posting this in the comments since the threads seems to be auto-removed: https://reclaimthenet.org/twitter-admits-censored-white-house-tweet-doesnt-break-rules/

0

prodriggs Yesterday

Twitter didn't censor trumpf. Twitter can censor trumpf if they want, they're a private company. Republicans support the free market and a lack of gov't interference in private companies. Yet, they cry when trumpfs lies/calls of violence are pointed out.

26

psyon Yesterday

Absolutely Twitter can censor who ever they want but then are may be considered a publisher and not a platform, and be liable for content on their site. **EDIT** See my comment below. https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/gthkve/as_trump_targets_twitters_legal_shield_experts/fscrypu/

0

prodriggs Yesterday

>but then are may be considered a publisher and not a platform, and be liable for content on their site. This is false.

12

psyon Yesterday

You can't just say "This is false". Show why it's false, or you are just saying "Nuh Uh!!!".

0

prodriggs Yesterday

Burden of proof lies on the user making the claim.

4

psyon 11 hs ago

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-under-communications-decency-act Here is the synopsis. Prodigy and Compuserve were both sued a while back due to content posted on their sites. Compuserved did no moderation at all, and the courts ruled that they were like a bookstore, and could not be sued. Prodigy on the other hand did moderate their content, so the courts ruled that they were acting like a publisher, and were liable for their content. The government wanted websites to be able to moderate their content without fear of being sued, but it had to be in "good faith", so they added section 230 of the communications decency act. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 47 U.S. Code Section 230(c)(2) > (2)Civil liability - No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A)any action voluntarily taken in **good faith** to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or > (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] So if they aren't taking action in good faith, and it's due to political bias, they are no longer offered the protections offered by section 230 of the communications decency act. Instead, they would fall under the ruling by the courts, that they are a publisher. Ok, your turn. Why is it false?

0

prodriggs 10 hs ago

>So if they aren't taking action in good faith, and it's due to political bias, they are no longer offered the protections offered by section 230 of the communications decency act. You've failed to prove that this action wasn't taken in good faith.

2

psyon 10 hs ago

I wasn't arguing wether or not their current action was taken in good faith. I said they can censor who ever they want, but if they do, they would be held to a different standard. Because if they were censoring who ever they wanted, I would guess that much of it wouldn't be in good faith.

0

prodriggs 9 hs ago

>I said they can censor who ever they want, but if they do, they would be held to a different standard. And yet, your own source contradicts this statement....

2

classic__schmosby Yesterday

You provided as much proof as he did.

7

psyon 11 hs ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/gthkve/as_trump_targets_twitters_legal_shield_experts/fscrypu/

0

4ofN Yesterday

I think they should get rid of it. It would mean more restrictions on social media content which would be a good thing. I bet it would make it more likely that right wing fake news would be reduced.

0

gurenkagurenda Yesterday

Do you think losing Wikipedia as collateral damage would be worth that speculated benefit?

6

4ofN 11 hs ago

Well, considering that fake news and general disinformation campaigns are attempting to destroy western democracy, it might just be a price we need to consider.

0

musedmb715 10 hs ago

I know what you’re saying but if you look at the fake news and party newspapers and games that were played in like the 1820s and 1830s election fake news was just as crazy. A lot of current fake news is currently spread through social media, I agree with that. I’m just not sure whether getting rid of it would lead to a better informed electorate.

3

4ofN 9 hs ago

I dont actually think social media would die but rather they would have to take fact checking seriously. They might also become smaller or of less influence, but thats what i think would be good. Imagine a smaller facebook or twitter without very much bullshit. Heaven.

0

ShadowKirbo Yesterday

Did you even read any of your mandatory school books? This is generally known as a bad Idea.

3

4ofN 11 hs ago

I did read most of my mandatory school books. What areyoutalking about?

1

Willy_wonks_man Yesterday

I've been saying it for years, but sparknotes and sites like it are the downfall of critical thinking in western cultures.

0

Domini384 Yesterday

Rofl imagine going through life thinking this

18

TubularTorqueTitties Yesterday

Oh, please let's listen to the experts. They have never been wrong.

Edit-I'm honestly shocked that so many will blindly obey and believe the word of others over free thought. Think for yourselves.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-experts-are-almost-always-wrong-9997024/

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/31/experts-coronavirus-cdc-158313

0

localsquids444 Yesterday

The amount of stupidity in this sentence is both laughable and disturbing all at once. Congrats.

56

Domini384 Yesterday

He's got a point though. How do you become an expert? You can throw darts all day long and eventually you'll get a hit on your target

0

Abedeus Yesterday

> How do you become an expert? By getting drunk, failing at school, blaming minorities and women for your failures, then joining a hate group. Oh, no, wait, that's how to become a Trump supporter.

5

Domini384 Yesterday

Oh ho ho ho clever low blow there man. Never gets old does it?

0

Abedeus Yesterday

That's what Trump said about the teen beauty pageants he peeped on.

6

Domini384 Yesterday

Damn another one, the cringe never stops with this guy

0

ShiftyUsmc Yesterday

and the award for worst analogy ever goes to........Domini384!!!! for his role in saying that dedication of your life to a specific topic is the same as throwing darts. Ive got an idea bud. If you need heart surgery dont see a heart surgeon. Go see someone random. Cause, hey, their bound to get it right eventually.

11

ryansgt 11 hs ago

Yeah, maybe if you had read the analogy you would see what he's saying. He is absolutely advocating that if you want to win a game of darts, you should use the professional dart player. The same thing with the surgeon, use the guy that has practiced this procedure his whole life.  Could you go to a random back alley surgical center and be alright, sure it's possible but it's more likely on a professionals table.

0

leif777 Yesterday

An expert dart player will hit the target more than anyone else. That's because they have put many hours of practice into the game. It's no different than a scientist or a doctor. With they miss the bullseye from time to time? Yes. That's fucking life. Get used to it.

13

HonoraryAustrlian Yesterday

Because they hit the target more than. Anyone else on the topic.

21

Domini384 Yesterday

Interesting that you use the word "they", are they a collective mind? Can never be wrong with that mentality

0

Saemika 11 hs ago

You know exactly what context he used the word in.

8

localsquids444 Yesterday

Omg, are y’all crazy? They fricking study and go to school and get degrees in the field they are in. What in the world. I’m not saying you can’t think for yourself, you absolutely should. But to act like experts don’t know what they are talking about when they have literally studied the field for years is idiotic

38

TubularTorqueTitties Yesterday

Don't be naive, "experts" are only experts because others have said they are. They aren't always right and they get it wrong sometimes (a lot), do your own research and form your own opinions. Think for yourself. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-experts-are-almost-always-wrong-9997024/ https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/31/experts-coronavirus-cdc-158313

0

ryansgt 11 hs ago

So an expert on a topic is not to be trusted any more than some random internet stranger that learned by watching youtube videos. Think critically but anyone that takes this advice deserves what they get.

5

TubularTorqueTitties 9 hs ago

I'm just telling people to think critically and take more than one statement as fact. There is a lot of misinformation and bias which fuels it, not to mention the presumption that what some authority figures say is not to be questioned. I'm not sure why that is such a controversial topic.

1

ryansgt 9 hs ago

Because your advice seems to take that very simple idea, critical thinking and conflates all sources of authority. It's the simple reason why we have people ignoring doctors while dying from off book use of fish tank medicine. There are very good ways to choose your authorities on a particular field... Experience is one of the best. So yeah, critical thinking but until i have their years of experience I am going to defer to peer reviewed doctor on the subject of medicine. I'm going to defer to the astrophysicists on the subject of astrophysics...

2

SolluxCaptor2 Yesterday

Anti-intellectul garbage. You're part of the problem.

32

TubularTorqueTitties Yesterday

That's okay, continue to blindly obey. Didn't think the concept of thinking for yourself would be so caustic to you. I guess not challenging ideas sounds good to you. Doesn't intellectualism encourage independent thought and testing hypothesis?

0

SolluxCaptor2 9 hs ago

I'm sure anti-vaxxers think they're 'challenging ideas' too. They aren't, and neither are you. You don't even seem to understand what I'm talking about, given you little absurd tangent about 'blind obedience' and 'free thinking'. You think you're participating in the latter, when really you've just swapped out the propaganda you let brainwash you. People like you are why post-secondary school needs to be free and mandatory. You're an embarrassment to anyone of even average intelligence.

3

TubularTorqueTitties 9 hs ago

Listen sport, the brainwashing you have been subjected to is oozing though your own comments, I won't even address that. Your assumptions of my education level make you sounds like an imbecile when you try to defend your viewpoint. I suggest you take your insecurities about other people's thoughts and opinions and rethink your argument.

0

SolluxCaptor2 9 hs ago

Dear god, everything you write is cringe. Alright then, lets deal in facts instead of trading insults, it's starting to bore me and you have zero game. Your first article cites ZERO statistical sources, despite making a stink about the necessity of doing so, and the author has no background in statistical analysis or even math. They're a reporter. The second one is basically a book ad, but contains a little tidbit I find amazing in its irony: "**The real problem of prediction, in other words, is not that we are universally good or bad at it, but rather that we are bad at distinguishing predictions that we can make reliably from those that we can’t."** You just shot your own point in the head.  PS: All this talk of irony made me realize that you're appealing to experts of analysis on analysis experts while decrying their siblings in the field. Did you just grow up this stupid, or did you get hit in the head?

3

Willy_wonks_man Yesterday

It also encourages being wrong and changing your mind. Something you don't seem to understand.

5

jm8263 Yesterday

Or you know, don't education yourself from any reliable sources and continue to think you're enlightened. That's working out fine.

9

Abedeus Yesterday

You and your ilk shouldn't even spit on the word "intellect".

6

TubularTorqueTitties Yesterday

Please tell me, who are my ilk?

0

Abedeus Yesterday

Mouthbreathers who had no success in life so they spend their time online yelling at people who listen to those with knowledge and expertise.

5

TubularTorqueTitties Yesterday

That's a fairly good insult. What I've learned from you and your ilk over the years is that you lack the ability to assemble a coherent argument so you resort to petty insults with random people on the internet. Good luck with your superiority complex, I'm sure it won't backfire on you.

0

jm8263 11 hs ago

How can you keep posting whenever one downvotes you? Society literally tells you that you're wrong, and you're proud of it. If 90% of the population tells you you're wrong you're not even going to rethink it?

3

CanyoneroPrime Yesterday

it's part of the bot brigade.

6

SolluxCaptor2 9 hs ago

I figured. Gotta oppose it anyway.

2

gunvalkyrie Yesterday

"Sometimes (a lot)"

3

grapesinajar Yesterday

I honestly don't see a good reason - an "in the public interest" reason - why these social media companies should be exempt from laws that cover any other media company.

Does society really benefit from a firehose of unfiltered yammering with absolutely no guidance or gatekeeper? To essentially have replaced mediated discussion with a free-for-all opinion amplifier machine?

There are pros and cons to everything, but the idea of "no consequences" for companies just doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't exactly encourage them to be socially responsible if they are immune to consequences.

0

daze23 Yesterday

you don't think the internet should have a platform for free speech?

10

madd_science Yesterday

By all means, make one.

0

gurenkagurenda Yesterday

Several reasons are covered in the article. It would be more productive to say why you don't find those reasons compelling than to just say you "don't see a good reason".

42

Zainecy Yesterday

Could some the dangers of repealing be ameliorated by mandatory Arbitration of claims?

1

King_Posner Yesterday

No, still massive cost associated with that.

1

3

25 2

mcstafford 2 years ago

I remember the disconnect I felt with taking Pluto off the list of planets until I realized how small it is.

I have a similar disconnection with calling the moon a world.

1

Gregrox Level Five Space Kraken 2 years ago

The mouseover text on this one really sticks with me.

7

wombatlegs 2 years ago

And then there were four. Alan Bean dies age 86.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Bean

2

daniel-alex daniel-alex'); DROP TABLE userFlairs;-- 2 years ago

Shame to hear that, tho at 86 it's a life well lived. Also really like [this photo](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Alan_Bean_photo_at_NASM_by_Matthew_Bisanz.jpg/1280px-Alan_Bean_photo_at_NASM_by_Matthew_Bisanz.jpg) of him with his space paintings. :)

1

CapitanM 2 years ago

But... Absolutely ignorant here: apart from the guys who went to the moon, there are more people who has been in another place outside earth?

14

clayt6 2 years ago

First off, it's hard to ask a question out of ignorance, but it's one of the best (and hardest) reasons to ask. As for the question, many have been in orbit around Earth (533), either solo or aboard the international space station (at an altitude of about 250 miles), but nobody has gone beyond the Moon (at an "altitude" of about 250,000 miles). Twelve people went there. Nothing in-between is of much interest, and anything beyond has never been attempted.

38

CapitanM 2 years ago

Ooh I only knew about the first expedition. I have to update myself asap. Thanks

4

FondueDiligence 2 years ago

>nobody has gone beyond the Moon (at an "altitude" of about 250,000 miles). Twelve people went there. A little pedantic, but 24 people left low Earth orbit to visit the moon but only 12 of those actually landed on the surface. Apollo 8 and 10 orbited the moon without landing. Apollo 13 had to abort landing on the moon but still did a flyby. Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 all sent two astronauts to the surface while a third continued to orbit the moon in the command module.

36

clayt6 2 years ago

Ah, good catch. Thank you!

4

CapitanM 2 years ago

Thanks a lot

8

kiwidave 2 years ago

Aw, I hate that this is how I find out Bean's gone. Very sad.

30

hemenex 2 years ago

I don't think we are gonna make it again in time. :(

26

AluminiumSandworm Actually a giant spaceworm 2 years ago

we have until 2030, if it stays accurate. maybe we'll be back before then.

21

OmnipotentEntity Mostly Harmless 2 years ago

Per the graph, we're already behind. 4 left should have waited until 2020 or so.

13

SolHiemis Is angry that Rubens tubes are more fancy than Pin 2 years ago

The 50th percentile graph jumps from 5 to 4 around 2018 so we're on track.

35

Taiga_Blank LOOK UPON MY CUTENESS AND DESPAIR! 2 years ago

That honestly is one of the most profound title-texts Randall's ever written.

213

natedogg787 2 years ago

Sci-Fi youtuber Isaac Arthur laid out a scenario of how tis woulc go, it was pretty interesting: [Dead Aliens](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7fLNvpl0c8)

8

twoscoopsofpig Archaeology needs more swordfights 2 years ago

Feels

14

Straumli_Blight 2 years ago

xkcd discussion when John Young died in January.

46

xkcd_bot 2 years ago

Mobile Version!

Direct image link: 65 Years

Title text: The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.

Don't get it? explain xkcd

Helping xkcd readers on mobile devices since 1336766715. Sincerely, xkcd_bot. <3

137

macksting 2 years ago

Has anybody sent this to NASA? I'm sure some folks have seen it, and they have serious funding problems as often as not, but if there's someone at the top who hasn't seen it and should...

That said, I'm still pretty darn happy about that picture of Charon's dark side lit up by Plutoshine, so there is that.

1

zer0mas 2 years ago

Maybe we can change this. Time to send people back to the Moon and to Mars

3

erikb85 2 years ago

lol. I agree, but still: How much was Elon Musk paying him to draw this?

0

yogu32 2 years ago

I don't even think Elon Musk would agree with it (the alt text), him being an economic person and still striving for the colonization of the solar system.

4

erikb85 2 years ago

> I don't even think Elon Musk would agree with it (the alt text), him being an economic person and still striving for the colonization of the solar system. The alt text was exactly the reason I said that. From my understanding of Elon that is exactly something he would say, which doesn't mean that behind these words he's thinking clearly about financial topics as well. To succeed with a big endeavor you always need true believers. And to these people one doesn't talk about money.

1

kerbalcada3301 You will not go to space today 2 years ago

I edited a slightly less depressing version that includes future mars and moon missions.

24

Boring_Sci_Fi Beret Guy 2 years ago

Still, there is a very good chance everyone that has walked on the moon will die before anyone new does.

2

amanforallsaisons 2 years ago

Then a couple centuries later, we need a table for number of living humans who have walked on Earth...

1

Straumli_Blight 2 years ago

Might want to make the graph a bit steeper, as both Blue Origin's [New Glenn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn) and SpaceX's [BFR] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket\)) will be able to land more than 2 people on the Moon at a time.

2

Arancaytar Pony 2 years ago

Relevant flair :P There's an upcoming prediction question on Metaculus that asks whether we will make it in time: https://www.metaculus.com/questions/615/will-the-number-of-living-humans-who-have-walked-on-another-world-fall-to-zero/

5

HippoWarrior 2 years ago

That alt-text gave me chills.

16

dracho 2 years ago

My brain isn't functioning fully. Can someone please ELI5?

8

runetrantor Bobcats are cute 2 years ago

An astronaut that went to the moon just died, so this comic's estimate of how long until there are no living humans that have walked on other astronomical bodies keeps getting closer to it's inevitable conclusion. (Unless Space X or whoever else gets someone out soon) And with each death of relevant astronauts, they update it.(The one in the comments)

33

dracho 2 years ago

Thanks. So the 5th and 95th percentile is... bounds of projections?

6

runetrantor Bobcats are cute 2 years ago

Probably, not one for statistics and actuarial tables, but my guess is that yeah, they are more or less 'assuming fast average death' and 'assuming slow average death'. Though we can see most deaths remain near the median, as I guess it should. :P

3

Alekzcb 2 years ago

The future data has a 90% chance of being in the shaded area. Any given data point in the future has a 95% chance of being below the 95th percentile line, and a 5% chance of being below the 5th percentile line.

15

talex95 2 years ago

that Alt text is a bit depressing

34

shadowmask Miss your loved ones? 2 years ago

It wouldn't be if we would just DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

24

Arancaytar Pony 2 years ago

Exactly; we need to hurry and develop clinical immortality while we still have some Apollo astronauts left!

5

Cobaltjedi117 [Citation Needed] 2 years ago

I volunteer to go to the moon or mars. As long as I can come back, or can bring my xbox tv and internet.

8

audigex 2 years ago

The first people to go to mars probably aren’t coming back. It’d be one hell of a way to die, though.

8

lare290 I fear Gnome Ann 2 years ago

If I was in even remotely good physical condition, I'd definitely want to permanently move to Mars. Correspondence chess and books are enough to keep me from going insane, so there would only be good things in going there: No need to talk to people other than the crew I'd be going with, no need to worry about finding and holding a job, plenty of time to ponder philosophy and mathematics...

1

Straumli_Blight 2 years ago

Updated plot .

Astronaut	Died
Neil Armstrong	August 25, 2012
Edgar Mitchell	February 4, 2016
Eugene Cernan	January 16, 2017
John Young	January 5, 2018

159

Arancaytar Pony 2 years ago

I wonder where a new actuarial projection would lie. The median doesn't seem to change much, but the range would have narrowed somewhat by now.

11

Straumli_Blight 2 years ago

Randall [wrote a python script to calculate actuarial tables](https://blog.xkcd.com/2012/07/12/a-morbid-python-script/), which is hosted [here](https://gist.github.com/snipsnipsnip/3730576).   The remaining astronaut age ranges would be calculated by: ~$ python actuary.py 87m 85m 85m 82m 82m

16

Arancaytar Pony 2 years ago

Of course he did. :D Awesome!

6

vanisaac Numquam conjectes mundum talia continere 2 years ago

Who were the first three?

9

Straumli_Blight 2 years ago

Astronaut | Died ---|--- [James Irwin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Irwin) | August 8, 1991 [Alan Shepard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Shepard) | July 21, 1998 [Pete Conrad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Conrad) | July 8, 1999

19

settleddown 2 years ago

It's scary how close to the median line the actual result is.

87

FondueDiligence 2 years ago

I think it would be scarier if it was drastically far away from the median line.

129

dontthrowmeinabox 2 years ago

Not really. Astronauts had to be in peak physical shape, and may have thus been more likely than the average person to stay in peak physical shape, which would tend to reduce certain risks.

7

DelusionalSocialist 2 years ago

I have no idea if it's the case, but it's not ridiculous to believe that they kept that into account in this model.

2

rspeer 2 years ago

Right, what if they all came back with a slow-acting but ultimately fatal Moon Disease? Or what if they found the secret to immortality on the Moon?

68

FondueDiligence 2 years ago

>slow-acting but ultimately fatal Moon Disease I know the general consensus has always been that radiation in space isn't especially dangerous over short time spans, but at least in my mind there was always the worry that going through the Van Allen belt or spending several days outside of the protection of Earth's atmosphere might subject a person to some unknown but deadly form of radiation. That would spell long term trouble for any future human spaceflight.

9

tossoneout 2 years ago

Possibly some of the most highly physically trained people on this planet at that time, much fitter than the median American.

6

[deleted] 2 years ago

Now I’m imagining fountain of youth ads for moon vacations.

26

daniel-alex daniel-alex'); DROP TABLE userFlairs;-- 2 years ago

John Young's death reminded me again of this depressing xkcd comic.

40

xkcd_bot 2 years ago

Mobile Version!

Direct image link: 65 Years

Title text: The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.

Don't get it? explain xkcd

For the good of mobile users! Sincerely, xkcd_bot. <3

71

brand_x 2 years ago

One of the more profound title texts in xkcd history.

4

wasp32 2 years ago

<3

8

Arancaytar Pony 3 years ago

FYI, here is an updated graphic (marking the deaths of Armstrong in 2012, Mitchell in 2016 and Cernan now).

http://imgur.com/hoTCqbU

54

ilinamorato My code's compiling 3 years ago

Interesting. They're beating the odds, largely. Humans who have walked on another planet appear to be longer-lived than the actuarial tables would predict, on average. Probably something about general health and fitness.

7

NewbornMuse 3 years ago

Well within the "reasonable" percentiles, though.

4

Arancaytar Pony 3 years ago

Nine data points; just saying. :P

6

ilinamorato My code's compiling 3 years ago

If it's good enough for the anti-vaxxers and climate deniers, it's good enough for me. Bad argument? Maybe.

3

rfry11 3 years ago

deleted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.2548 [^^^What ^^^is ^^^this?](https://pastebin.com/FcrFs94k/36153)

10

rafajafar 3 years ago

"The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision."

...damn.

24

eddiemon 3 years ago

I like the sentiment and it's a good line, but nothing about space exploration is irrational, at least not more so than any other human endeavor. Or maybe put it this way: There are plenty of rational reasons for space exploration. The same can be said for fundamental science experiments.

10

[deleted] 3 years ago

Randall's likely using "irrational decision" sarcastically here, incorporating the phrasing opponents to space exploration would use, a la "look who's irrational now?"

2

[deleted] 3 years ago

The quote is specifically referring to economically sensible, not more generally. There's not an incredible amount of return on investment to be had in space exploration, so it is economically irrational.

2

runetrantor Bobcats are cute 3 years ago

I guess the argument is that it's 'irrational' in the sense of 'throwing away money at a high risk endeavor that MAY produce great profits, but could also not'. Funding the voyage that found the Americas would also be 'irrational' and certainly Columbus failed to get funding from other royals before Spain was game. (Supposedly because those other royals knew his estimate for the Earth's circumference was bollocks and he would not make it to India alive) If you dont take the risk, you save money, because you will never know the wealth you missed on by not investing.

7

eddiemon 3 years ago

Since when do we measure the "profits" of space exploration in short-sighted financial terms? You cannot measure the financial "profits" of inspiring millions of children to study science and technology, of fundamentally changing how we see ourselves in the universe, not to mention the very tangible benefits of technological improvements developed during the space programs. Not all human activity has to be measured in financial terms. Is investing in the arts "irrational" because it doesn't produce financial returns? What financial return would we get from saving lives or preventing suffering? Does that mean we should stop?

2

runetrantor Bobcats are cute 3 years ago

> Since when do we measure the "profits" of space exploration in short-sighted financial terms? Ask the politicians who fund (or not) space programs. You are preaching to the choir here, anyone interested in space would LOVE to see a ton of money thrown into it as it will have huge dividends, but Randall is not speaking about us, but about the precisely short sighted people that fund stuff. "Space stuff takes decades, I cant get re elected with that!"

2

ilinamorato My code's compiling 3 years ago

That's the point Randall is making.

6

eddiemon 3 years ago

And I'm saying calling it "irrational" in the first place is a bad way to make that point.

1

ilinamorato My code's compiling 3 years ago

He's saying that other people are calling it irrational. He's using their word. It's a great way to make that point; conversationally quite subtle but powerful.

1

[deleted] 3 years ago

Thank you, you're exactly right. He's using the term "irrational decision" sarcastically.

2

eddiemon 3 years ago

And I'm saying it's a purely emotional appeal based on a semi-strawman, that is unlikely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with him. Serious critics of space programs question things like cost, technological feasibility, concrete goals, tangible benefits, etc. There are very, very few people who say space programs are fundamentally worthless.

1

ilinamorato My code's compiling 3 years ago

> Serious critics of space programs question things like cost, technological feasibility, concrete goals, tangible benefits, etc. What do you think he means by "irrational?"

0

FallacyExplnationBot 3 years ago

^Hi! ^Here's ^a ^summary ^of ^the ^term ^"Strawman": ---- ^^A [^^straw ^^man](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Straw_man) ^^is ^^logical ^^fallacy ^^that ^^occurs ^^when ^^a ^^debater [^^intentionally ^^misrepresents](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Red_herring) ^^their ^^opponent's ^^argument ^^as ^^a ^^weaker ^^version ^^and ^^rebuts ^^that ^^weak ^^& ^^fake ^^version ^^rather ^^than ^^their ^^opponent's ^^genuine ^^argument. ^^Intentional ^^strawmanning ^^usually ^^has ^^the ^^goal ^^of ^^[1] ^^avoiding ^^real ^^debate ^^against ^^their ^^opponent's ^^real ^^argument, ^^because ^^the ^^misrepresenter ^^risks ^^losing ^^in ^^a ^^fair ^^debate, ^^or ^^[2] ^^making ^^the ^^opponent's ^^position ^^appear ^^ridiculous ^^and ^^thus ^^win ^^over ^^bystanders. ^^Unintentional ^^misrepresentations ^^are ^^also ^^possible, ^^but ^^in ^^this ^^case, ^^the ^^misrepresenter ^^would ^^only ^^be ^^guilty ^^of ^^simple ^^ignorance. ^^While ^^their ^^argument ^^would ^^still ^^be ^^fallacious, ^^they ^^can ^^be ^^at ^^least [^^excused ^^of ^^malice.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_Razor)

1

ParaspriteHugger There's someone inside my head (but it's not me) 3 years ago

[It shall be our way] (https://youtu.be/YufsbE4-jmY) [To wander away] (https://youtu.be/YufsbE4-jmY) [And take with us all that we know] (https://youtu.be/YufsbE4-jmY)

2

bvr5 3 years ago

I made this edit a couple months ago. We were doing kinda good, but now we're down on the 50/50 line and maybe a couple pixels to the right of the red dot.

7

HAESisAMyth 3 years ago

"World"

3

charlie_marlow 3 years ago

[The Moon is large enough in relation to Earth that it could be argued that it and Earth are a binary planet system.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_planet)

6

rchard2scout Words Only 3 years ago

Except that the [barycenter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter) of the Earth–Moon system lies inside the Earth, while in most binary planet systems (such as the Pluto–Charon system [except that Pluto and Charon are dwarf planets]), the barycenter is in between the planets.

3

TastyBrainMeats Girl In Beret 3 years ago

>We might look upon the Moon, then, as neither a true satellite of the Earth nor a captured one, but as a planet in its own right, moving about the Sun in careful step with the Earth. From within the Earth–Moon system, the simplest way of picturing the situation is to have the Moon revolve about the Earth; but if you were to draw a picture of the orbits of the Earth and Moon about the Sun exactly to scale, you would see that the Moon's orbit is everywhere concave toward the Sun. It is always "falling toward" the Sun. All the other satellites, without exception, "fall away" from the Sun through part of their orbits, caught as they are by the superior pull of their primary planets – but not the Moon. — Isaac Asimov I would call that a compelling argument.

10

HAESisAMyth 3 years ago

> and is therefore not an official classification But then I read the Asimov quote, so I agree with you. Thanks for the link

4

Krinberry Ten thousand years we slumbered... 3 years ago

Jesus Christ, half the people who've been to the moon have died?! We need to halt all plans for further exploration or colonization there until we can figure out what makes contact with it so deadly!

200

hoopaholik91 3 years ago

Eh, a 50% mortality rate is better than the average 93%.

33

Krinberry Ten thousand years we slumbered... 3 years ago

THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK

1

zaphod_85 Neo-Nazis suck! 3 years ago

Wait, 7% of all people are immortal???

32

hoopaholik91 3 years ago

I mean, only 93% of all humans that have lived have died, so you tell me.

37

tmckeage 3 years ago

Citation Needed that would mean almost 100 billion people have lived. Edit: I was wrong http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16870579

10

rspeer 3 years ago

We are the 7%. Oh god, that's why people are so upset about dead people voting.

32

RustyShackleford298 3 years ago

"We're all just dead people who haven't died yet."

15

ParaspriteHugger There's someone inside my head (but it's not me) 3 years ago

Morituri Nolumus Mori.

2

Krinberry Ten thousand years we slumbered... 3 years ago

With a side of noodles.

3

ParaspriteHugger There's someone inside my head (but it's not me) 3 years ago

Potatoes would be more traditional. To go, of course.

2

Arancaytar Pony 3 years ago

What is more, the mortality seems to be constantly rising - implying that the effect is irreversible even decades after they stopped going to the moon.

86

ParaspriteHugger There's someone inside my head (but it's not me) 3 years ago

My theory would be time. I also say that the moon is pretty safe, nobody ever died there, not like here on this killer dirt ball crawling with snakes, spiders, crocodiles and what else lives in Australia...

38

Krinberry Ten thousand years we slumbered... 3 years ago

Crap, maybe this is a conspiracy by Australian spiders to make the moon look extra dangerous to keep people from moving there away from their pointy fangs!

19

8 2

DefiantClone Yesterday

They don’t care about right or wrong or rights, they just want to cause harm and destruction.

3

SoThisIsABadUsername Conservative 1 day ago

Someone in government needs to man the fuck up and do something

16

spike_that_focker 1 day ago

CALL JG WENTWORTH

4

YourMom1285 1 day ago

877 CASH NOW!!!!

4

A-A-RonAutist 1 day ago

All these conservatives forget about the Tea Party!

0

skarface6 Easter Worshipper 1 day ago

Where they avoided all private property and came back the next day to make restitution for the only bit of it they damaged? Where they destroyed government property in a focused way for a specific effect and nothing else? There’s basically no good comparison with the riots in DC and the Tea Party beyond government property being involved. Go back to whatever lefty subreddit you come from, please.

10

Natetendo83 Conservative 1 day ago

Yea I forgot the part where they burned Boston to the ground afterwards. Somehow that didn’t make the history lessons.

12

SomeGiantSpaceSnake 1 day ago

The Boston Tea Party activists took special care to only destroy the British tea. They even replaced a broken padlock that belonged to one of the ships' captain.

7

ArctiClove 1 day ago

Decent americans vs thugs. I do not think anyone forgot!

28

Jet-Age 1 day ago

nice dog whistle

0

ngoni Constitutional Conservative 1 day ago

That's the word [Obama used](https://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2015/04/29/obama-white-house-baltimore-stephanie-rawlings-blake/26585143/) and it is still applicable.

9

lastbastion Party of Lincoln 1 day ago

If you are the only one that can hear the whistle then doesn't that make you the dog?

17

Jet-Age Yesterday

ah yes I'm the racist for noticing the covert racism! Great observation

1

A-A-RonAutist 1 day ago

All Americans are decent. The thugs are those in office

0

waternapple 1 day ago

The thugs are also out leveling Minneapolis

19

A-A-RonAutist 1 day ago

Same thugs that threw tea in the harbor eh? Those "thugs" just breached the Federal Reserve too and put the White House on lock down. Like or not, this is happening.

0

ArctiClove 1 day ago

Ahh. We all learned in school how Sam Adam's and the sons of liberty beat up women in wheelchairs and burned down stores and homes. The rioters are thugs, which contrasts the hero's that helped found the greatest country on earth. See the difference?

10

socialismnotevenonce 1 day ago

The Tea Party only destroyed foreign imported Tea to send a message. They didn't burn their own city to the ground in a statement of anarchy.

8

SavvyEquestrian 1 day ago

They didn't burn down private property and rip apart the livelihood of unattached peoples during the Boston Tea Party.. Basically noboby is claiming that the situation with the officer is okay, it's fucking bad, but burning down your community does nothing to solve or remedy the situation. Nothing.

15

actuallyboa 1 day ago

Apparently they spray painted “F- Trump” and “Keep it real b-“

12

D4rk50ul 1 day ago

Someone has an agenda.. These definitely aren't protestors they are activists and criminals.

30

Pollaski Mug Club 1 day ago

All thst to spraypaint "bitch" on a plaque.

Fight the system!

3

Rabidraccoon76 Rand Paul Conservative 1 day ago

Spoiler alert: There’s nothing there but an IOU

57

geronl72 Reagan conservative 1 day ago

lock and load

14

25 2

AutoModerator Literally McCarthy 4 hs ago

Just a friendly reminder to read our rules and FAQ before posting!
Rule 1: No Low Quality Posts/Comments
Rule 2: Tuesday Is A Center Right Sub
Rule 3: Flairs Are Mandatory. If you are new, please read up on our Flairs.
Rule 4: Tuesday Is A Policy Subreddit
Additional Rules apply if the thread is flaired as "High Quality Only"

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Fuzzball6846 :nato: NATO 4 hs ago

Hong Kong is successful because it’s a foothold in the Chinese Market without the stranglehold of authoritarianism.

I appreciate the sentiment, but this city won’t attract the number type or number of investors.

1

rapidla01 Yesterday

A large part of Hong Kong’s allure is that it grants Investors access to the Chinese market while also having the rule of law. I fail to see how that could be replicated in Essex.

Also, I appreciate the neoliberal spirit that hundreds of thousands of people would move around half of the world like that, but that’s never going to happen.

What the government should do (and apparently is doing) would be to encourage immigration from Hong Kong (and in general, but I digress) and help them settle in existing cities. Maybe ease zoning laws a bit so they can build their own homes more easily, if you’re at it.

21

Clashlad :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

Can a man not dream!? On a serious note I’m up for this too, as someone commented there’s a lot of brown sites in places such as Manchester and Birmingham that can be built on. It wouldn’t be the first mass exodus to the UK however, the Windrush generation being a recent example.

7

MeloFlop :powell: Jerome Powell Yesterday

Hong-Kong-on-Thames baby 😎

24

GuerillaTill :friedman: Milton Friedman Yesterday

I’m all for this, but how does this fair for the Brexiters? The movement was widely fueled by populist, anti-immigration sentiment.

9

Clashlad :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

Some of it was. Amongst the intellectual side however there was an arguably global vision as envisaged by those such as Johnson. A lot of their reasoning behind leaving was the ability to negotiate our own trade deals freely etc. I was against Brexit but I hope this is the route we go down, no point arguing about staying in or out now, we're out and we should make the most of the new opportunities we have as a result. I personally believe this is our chance to start becoming much more closely knit with the Commonwealth, something I believe has been neglected due to the EU.

5

witty___name :nozick: Robert Nozick Yesterday

The commonwealth has been "neglected" in favour of the EU because the commonwealth is on the other side of the world, whilst the EU is just across the channel. Geography is the main driver of trade.

12

Clashlad :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

Agreed, I was very much in favour of staying in the EU and still am, but it’s too late now. But when we joined the EEC we did cut off much of our previous Commonwealth trade, especially with countries like New Zealand who we essentially backstabbed by joining.

3

witty___name :nozick: Robert Nozick Yesterday

It's not backstabbing to trade with another country when that country becomes cheaper. You don't have a moral obligation to trade with a country because you colonised it 200 years ago.

4

Clashlad :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

Are you British or Commonwealth? Not to undermine you but that’s a very simplistic and incorrect assessment. Brits and Kiwis didn’t at the time, and hardly now view one-another as foreign, they were only granted complete autonomy from UK Parliament fairly recently and we share the same head of state, extremely close cultural ties etc. New Zealand was devastated at the time as we completely turned our backs on them by joining the EEC, they were completely reliant on us for trade. The relationship between CANZUK is far, far closer than pretty much any other group of countries in the world. We’re extremely closely bonded and have important obligations to one-another. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_New_Zealand “Irrespective of any legal developments, some New Zealanders still perceived themselves as a distinctive outlying branch of the United Kingdom until at least the 1970s. This attitude began to change when the United Kingdom joined the European Community in 1973 and abrogated its preferential trade agreements with New Zealand, and gradual nationality and societal changes further eroded the relationship.”

1

witty___name :nozick: Robert Nozick Yesterday

Yes I am British, I just don't hold sentimental attachment for an empire that stopped mattering in real terms in the 1950s. Shared culture does not outweigh economic realities. As pointed out in [this](https://youtu.be/jFl3OaBi8FY) video, all the CANZUK countries do far more trade with their neighbours and the US than each other, and the US has just a strong cultural influence over the Anglosphere than any commonwealth country.

3

ldn6 :eu: European Union Yesterday

Or just develop it in the huge amounts of brownfield land in the cores of Manchester and Birmingham.

9

Clashlad :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

This is something that we should already be doing anyway.

7

youlostthewarwehrs :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE

OI OI OI

For a start, we have a similar climate, larger land and a shorter distance. Topped with a similar-sized existing Cantonese diaspora compared to Britain.

6

Clashlad :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

By all means, I think the Commonwealth should be united on this and more united in general so absolutely.

6

youlostthewarwehrs :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

Make the Commonwealth into a free trade bloc when?

4

Clashlad :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

Make the Commonwealth into a ~~free trade bloc~~ **superstate** when?

2

youlostthewarwehrs :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

Canadian generals coordinating Gurkhas calling in air support from South African pilots while Australian artillery is being supplied by Indian Logistics trains, operating on British intelligence.

4

Clashlad :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

Stop stop I’m in public! On a serious note I think it’d have to be the Commonwealth of Realms first and in a federal parliamentary system.

2

witty___name :nozick: Robert Nozick Yesterday

https://youtu.be/jFl3OaBi8FY

1

PunishedOdysseus :nato: NATO Yesterday

....The Isle of Wight?

1

CaffeinatedQuant Yesterday

Quick someone resurrect JJ Cowperthwaite

1

Dr_Vesuvius :lamb: Norman Lamb Yesterday

There is a reason why those areas of land do not already have cities in them.

29

Cuddlyaxe :mankiw: Neoliberal With Chinese Characteristics Yesterday

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances

14

Dr_Vesuvius :lamb: Norman Lamb Yesterday

I mean Ok, let’s take the Highlands as an example - does anyone think there is a reasonable chance of millions of people, including Hongkongers who think 14 degrees is cold, relocating to an isolated part of Scotland with extremely poor communications links to the rest of Britain, never mind the world. If something like this is to have a non-negligible chance of success then it isn’t enough to say “there, that’s a city now”. It needs roads, sewage, water, electricity, heating, streetlights, broadband, and probably an international airport before it starts to look attractive to anyone.

29

Clashlad :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

I don't think anyone would suggest building it in the Highlands. After WWII loads of cities were created in the UK, I don't see why it couldn't be done after coronavirus.

11

Dr_Vesuvius :lamb: Norman Lamb Yesterday

No cities were built in the U.K. after WWII. There were the New Towns. The first wave of these were mostly expansions of existing small towns into towns of about 100,000 people. The second wave in the Sixties were slightly more ambitious, but they were also to an even greater extent based on existing settlements. Peterborough for example already had a cathedral. The only one that was really “new” and also a significant settlement was Milton Keynes, and even that was built on several existing villages. I’m not saying that you couldn’t set up a new city if you wanted to, but it certainly wouldn’t be as simple as drawing a circle around a bit of the countryside and declaring that all planning regulations are scrapped in that circle. Never mind that the areas Bowman would probably actually suggest from looking at the population density map are national parks, AONBs, and SSSIs, or else they are estuaries and lakes.

7

I_miss_Chris_Hughton Yesterday

Don't forget Telford! Built largely in the 1960s, expanding Dawley into one of the bigger non-conurbation towns in the midlands!

2

Awakeruad :popper: Karl Popper Yesterday

The plan for Brexit was to build "Singapore on the North Sea" by dismantling the welfare state and dramatically lowering corporate tax rates, so...

10

longlivedeath :eu: European Union Yesterday

> dismantling the welfare state Only in the imagination of people who read The Guardian. > dramatically lowering corporate tax rates This would be Good Actually, but is not happening either.

9

Stainonstainlessteel :hayek: Friedrich Hayek Yesterday

I don't know how does promising a a baijilion pounds on the NHS constitute dismantling the welfare state. That was definitely not the plan.

18

BipartizanBelgrade :nato: NATO Yesterday

>Scruffy haired man bad.

9

Clashlad :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

There were 50 million opposing Brexit plans and none of them have come into fruition yet.

6

atleastafool :soros: Deport succs Yesterday

> by dismantling the welfare state When did this happen?

22

MrsPhyllisQuott Blighty Yesterday

Singapore already exists, and I wouldn't want to live there.

1

Cuddlyaxe :mankiw: Neoliberal With Chinese Characteristics Yesterday

Boris playing 7d Mancala by settling Hong Kongers in the Scottish Highlands to defeat independence movements and the SNP

100

Stainonstainlessteel :hayek: Friedrich Hayek Yesterday

This but unironically

16

Clashlad :commonwealth: Commonwealth Yesterday

Lol I was thinking this.

28

bugmerot 1 day ago

A new city, made up of some of the most productive and innovative people on earth, drawing in new talent and investment from all around the world.

Why would they leave London for it?

it could be one of the few places in the British Isles where young people can move and hope for both a well-paid job and a house they can afford.

I don't imagine those houses will be cheap for very long.

Doesn't seem much substance to it, but just glossy 2.0 buzzwords.

Is the UK that much of a loss outside of London that it can't invest in the places already there?

14

Dave112211 Yesterday

>Why would they leave London for it? Because london is a overpriced crime ridden shithole >Is the UK that much of a loss outside of London that it can't invest in the places already there? It has bren able yo for years london chooses not to

0

bugmerot Yesterday

> Because london is a overpriced crime ridden shithole > > So will the new place be. >It has bren able yo for years london chooses not to So the answer is "fuck you" to people who lived in shitholes and build a new city for people coming from Hong Kong? Great.

1

Fineus United Kingdom Yesterday

> I don't imagine those houses will be cheap for very long. Seriously. If there's well paid jobs and houses that are cheap, why would only young people go there? Why wouldn't older people (even in their 30's upwards) take advantage... and just like magic, demand forces a rise in cost.

1

GaussWanker Somerset Yesterday

Even without people going there, landlords would snap up everything. Housing is seen an an investment not a necessity, and until that changes, it'll be as expensive as it can be.

1

VelarTAG post Brexit City State of London 2 days ago

We could build it right at the end of Heathrow's third runway, just to make them nostalgic.

1

CNeilC 2 days ago

I love HK ( live there ) but there are serious social and economic issues underpinning society as a result of their economic model. Think apartments the size of parking spaces costing 400k gbp, think of families living in 400 sq ft, think of extensive monopolies and duopolies, think of “cage” homes, think of poverty and lack of opportunity. UK would have to accept a significant underclass to go with a HK model. HK gini greter than 50 ( highest in developed world ) vs UK circa 30. Dont build HK in UK but do welcome all freedom loving ( ie not CCP supporters ) HKers.

1

AngloAlbannach2 2 days ago

Slight problem.

HK island is one of the most beautiful islands on this earth, she can't be replicated elsewhere.

0

easyfeel 2 days ago

Some say they'll be welcomed by other countries too and go to Canada.

1

didroe 2 days ago

This is a strange article. It seems very disjointed/badly argued. The narrative is something like:

Hong Kong was great due to it's location and liberal economy
Singapore is also great (this is also for similar reasons but nothing stated in the article)
Other places in the world might have similar "opportunities"
Let's set up a low tax jurisdiction in the UK (curveball)

Looks up the guy's credentials. Ah, he's from the Adam Smith Institute.

2

Osmium_tetraoxide apply "fusion doctrine" against Climate Change 2 days ago

Was the author huffing petrol again? We wouldn't allow this ramble as a self text post, but you join some 'think tank' to launder your idea, makes sense.

Why not, let these adam smith institutes fanatics build another privatised state inside another. Worked great for the city of london, not so much the rest of us.

2

LingCHN 2 days ago

But it is nowhere near enough: there are only 300,000 current BN(O) passport holders out of Hong Kong’s 7.5 million residents (though many more are eligible), and many have family members who they could not leave behind because people born after 1997 cannot get them.

The real solution is to found a new city and open it up to all Hong Kongers and Brits who want to move there. A Hong Kong 2.0, right here in the British Isles.

The author hasn't learned a lesson from Brexit.

9

ObjectiveRule6 Eco; 0.5 Social; -5.9 2 days ago

I don't think anybody has. Literally nobody. Idk what to think of Brexit except "something's broken here idk how to solve it, Eh, I'll just move somewhere else if it gets to broken" (Impressive patriotism ikr, at least I won't be competing for visas , if it gets too fucked because Irish dual-national) Most Leavers haven't discovered yet that politics of hate and division don't actual work when running a country. it's like the entire affair was meaningless and is only gouig make half the country feel shit while the other half sort of just wonders why everybody is less healthy and blaming the fact that stuff costs more on migrants.

1

RabidRab Conservative Communist 2 days ago

I'm not exactly a fan of this - or indeed any plan involving globalist investment as a pillar of the economy - but what I really don't understand is why this would require the creation of a new city; London basically already fits the bill of a financial hub already, so why not just make the city (ie the city proper) its own little charter area rather than build a new one?

4

Pleberal 2 days ago

Three reasons. 1. Housing stock, London is crowded and overpriced. 2. Balance of the UK. We are already hugely London centric, making that even more true is undesirable. 3. Devolution, any 'New Hong Kong" wants to have thing's like bilingual signage. Some autonomy like wales. The more ambitious versions of this seek a hong kong city state as a new home nation.

3

DillyisGOODATPOLTICS 2 days ago

How about no?

5

Gooner1798 2 days ago

Building New Hong Kong in Britain would be brilliant, but where would it be?

3

lime-green2 -4.63 , -7.69 2 days ago

Is this a joke? We've got more important things to do than create an entire city from nothing. I'm in favour of allowing Hong Kong citizens to move to the UK (including those born after 97) but they shouldn't just be put in one new city.

6

2

1 2

2

3

2 4

2

3

2

3

2

1 2

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

© 2020 Token Daily

Stay up to date on all things crypto and blockchain

Select

© 2020 Token Daily

🙌 Login to Token Daily