World News

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (7 children)

This won't happen under the Trump administration.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (6 children)

He wants his name on it, so he actually apparently really pushed Isaacman to make it happen before he's out of office. Of course, that's not possible, so who knows how much he cares anymore.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 child)

He definitely intends to still be in office whenever it finally happens.

parent

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 4 months ago*

I wonder what the bookies would give you on that bet because there's a very good chance he'll be dead before the end of his presidency.

parent

[+] radiofreebc@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Stop with the doomerism, it's not helping anyone. Yes, he probably intends that. But assuming he's already won makes it easier for him to actually win.

parent

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Obligatory reminder that he's not even eligible to run!

parent

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Correct. And yes, he's likely at least thinking about trying to make some rule changes or pulling some sort of shenanigans to get himself on the ballot anyway. But if we expect that to happen, it makes it all the more likely that he will, and that it'll succeed. Treating his victory as fait accompli just normalizes his abnormal behavior. It's a form of obeying in advance. We have to remain flabbergasted and horrified at his actions so that we can react to them correctly.

parent

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 months ago

So far

parent

[–] Rambomst@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Better late than never I guess?

parent

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

Permanent moon base for ??? But no universal healthcare.

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] kibblebits@quokk.au 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Haha. That won’t ever happen in America.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Psionicsickness@reddthat.com 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This. I don’t know why people ever even talk about universal healthcare. If it ever happened here, the place wouldn’t be called the USA. Not even worth talking about it, 0.0000000% chance of EVER happening.

parent

[–] kibblebits@quokk.au 3 points 4 months ago

To make it happen would require a massive bloody revolution where the rich are executed and thousands of corrupt people are imprisoned for treason.

That’s as likely as China becoming actually communist and getting rid of state capitalism and state approved oligarchs.

Or, Russians finally not falling out of windows on a daily basis.

Never gonna happen.

parent

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 4 months ago

That's like saying it's impossible to end slavery in America. Or it's impossible America would ever bow down to Russia.

Both of which have happened various points in history.

parent

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 points 4 months ago*

Whiteys living on the moon.

parent

[–] RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

The moon base is for insurance CEOs to hide from people that are not getting the health care they are paying through their noses for.

They can afford it cause they are not paying for their customers health care.

parent

[–] douz0a0bouz@midwest.social 1 point 4 months ago

I don't think so. Human bodies weren't made for 0g. The CEO's would likely stay here and send the poor's to the moon to work the mines.

parent

[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I don't want to look up at the moon and see that bullshit. You know the Epstein class tech bros are going to put ADS ON OUR FUCKING MOON.

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

They would have to be enormous to be seen from earth. When viewed from earth the moon only has a visual size of approximately 1 cm so the ad would have to be a thousand of kilometres across to just appear miniature from our perspective.

parent

[–] Maelvie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

What if they use giant projectors directed a earth, you would see the ads on the clouds, in the sky! Wouldn't that be awesome?

parent

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 4 months ago*

That's not how light works. In order to be bright enough to illuminate clouds on earth it would have to be brighter than the sun at its source point because of the Inverse-square law

The techbros already have this idea with a satellite it wouldn't work with that either for exactly the same reasons and the satellite would have been way closer.

parent

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Coming soon.

[–] hark@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Why?

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] jnod4@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

Million times cheaper to launch rockets from the moon than from earth. Easy access to almost an infinite amount of useful materials.

Could easily end wars on earth so we don't fight over some lithium in eastern europe. Or enough materials and batteries replace petrol once it runs out.

And who knows maybe our mars descendants will come back to repopulate earth

parent

[–] hark@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

This is ignoring the massive costs in building, staffing, and maintaining a moon base. There are battery chemistries that do not rely on lithium and even there weren't, we wouldn't need to fight wars over it. The wars are fought in an attempt to control those resources, even if not scarce. Expanding territory does not reduce scarcity when the scarcity is artificial (so that a few can exert control over the many). Also, why would the earth be depopulated while mars somehow thrives?

parent

[+] Marshezezz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

[deleted]