When I looked at Kbin the “caddy” was wrapped around RabbitMQ. You can get RabbitMQ to solve a lot of those issues.

Firstly with Rabbit you can set a Time To Live header in messages.

By default RabbitMQ queues have no limit in size, you can set a limit.

Lastly RabbitMQ allows message prioritisation. So you can drop the priority of things the older/more retries they contain.

Most of this is either RabbitMQ policy or Queue rules based on Headers in the AMQP message. Depending on how KBin is generating messages you might be able to do this as a system admin

If you signup to social media it will pester you for your email contacts, location and hobbies/interests.

Building a signup wizard to use that information to select a instance would seemto be the best approach.

The contacts would let you know what instance most of your friends are located (e.g. look up email addresses).

Topic specific instance, can provide a hobby/interests selection section.

Lastly the location would let you choose a country specific general instance.

It would help push decentralisation but instead of providing choice your asking questions the user is used to being asked.

Wikipedia lists all 12 subs as having Rolls Royce Pressured Water Reactors.

Your PWR reuse idea is is kind of where Rolls Royce is looking to go with Small Modular Reactors (https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx).

I suspect refurbishing decades old PWR reactors would be far more expensive than just building new ones, for example a SpaceX Merlin engine costs $1 million and a Blue Origin BE-4 costs $15 million. Nasa argued it would be ‘cheaper’ to reuse Shuttle components for the Space Launch System (SLS). Refurbishing Shuttle RS-25 engines has cost Nasa $50 million dollars per engine, restarting a production line is costing $100 million for each new RS-25 engine.

SpaceX are launching 26-52 satellites at a time and have sustained 3 launches a week for most of the year.

The satellites are in a Low Earth Orbit, without constant thrust, atmospheric drag will force them to re enter earths atmosphere within a few months. This means they aren’t adding to junk in space.

Unlike Nasa, ULA, Arriannespace, RoscosMos, etc… SpaceX have always performed 2nd Stage Deorbit burns, so they aren’t adding to Space junk by launching either.

The Low Earth Orbit is to ensure low latency and the need for constant thrust means the satellites have a short life expectancy by design. That is why SpaceX fought to keep the satellites as cheap as possible (e.g. $250k)

First stage booster reuse and fairing reuse means the majority of the launch cost is the second stage ($15 million).

The whole lot is privately funded

SpaceX have funded it privately. It apparently started operating at a profit this year.

If you read the reports…

Normally JPL outsource their Mars mission hardware to Lockheed Martin. For some reason they have decided to do Mars Sample Return in house. The reports argue JPL hasn’t built the necessary in house experience and should have worked with LM.

Secondly JPL is suffering a staff shortage which is affecting other projects and the Mars Sample Return is making the problem worse.

Lastly if an organisation stops performing an action it “forgets” how to do it. You can rebuild the capability but it takes time.

A team arbitrary declaring they are experts and suddenly decideding they will do it is one that will have to relearn skills/knowledge on a big expensive high profile project. The project will either fail (and be declared a success) or masses of money will be spent to compensate for the teams learning.

Either situation is not ideal

The GAO has performed an annual review of the Space Launch System every year since 2014 and switched to reviewing the Artemis program in 2019.

Each year the GAO points out Nasa isn’t tracking any costs and Nasa argues with the GAO about the costs they assign. Then the GAO points out Nasa has no concrete plan to reduce costs, Nasa then goes nu’uh (see the articles cost reduction “objectives”).

The last two reports have focused on the RS-25 engine, last time the GAO was unhappy because an engine cost Nasa $100 million and Nasa had just granted a development contract to reduce the cost of the engine.

However if you took the headline cost of the contract and split it over planned engines it was greater than the desired cost savings. Nasa response was development costs don’t count.

Congress reviews GAO reports and decides to give SLS more money.

The other person was just wrong.

Large scale Hydrogen generation isn’t generated in a fossil free way, Hydrogen can be generated is a green way but the infrastructure isn’t there to support SLS.

Hydrogen is high ISP (miles per gallon) by rubbish thrust (engine torque).

This means SLS only works with Solid Rocket Boosters, these are highly toxic and release green house contributing material into the upper atmosphere. I suspect you would find Falcon 9/Starship are less polluting as a result.

Lastly the person implies SLS could be fueled by space sources (e.g. the moon).

SLS is a 2.5 stage rocket, the boosters are ditched in Earths Atmosphere and the first stage ditched at the edge of space. The current second stage doesn’t quite make low earth orbit.

So someone would have to mine materials on the moon and ship them back. This would be far more expensive than producing hydrogen on Earth.

Hydrogen on the moon makes sense if your in lunar orbit, not from Earth.

I think its a self burn.

Person has never been in a relationship and so has no ex to photograph

Tesla actually market it as a positive.

Car manufacturers have to setup different manufacturing lines to provide different feature levels. Tesla argue this makes them more expensive. Tesla cars have all features installed, just disabled and the optional extra packages are cheaper compared to their rivals as a result.

To be honest there is a certain logic, if you’ve ever been in a Ford Focus LX (bottom range) its pretty clear they had to spend quite a bit of money on more basic systems. I honestly thought each LX was sold at a loss

That kind of character conversation is exactly what you would see if escaping wasn’t being done properly.

Definitely a bug in KBin there

Mardown has several valid different ways to define itself, both ways listed are valid ways to indicate italics.

You would expect Lemmy and KBin to fix on one way but display both. That is a bug in the lemmy renderer.

For example asterisk Is a special character, when used in JSON you have to escape special characters with a backslash. A single backslash is also a special character. What your seeing is double escaping, (e.g. something is repeating it on code)

A quick look through the KBin code showed it using json_encode which is the JSON conversion library built into PHP. A quick google shows double calling the library on a string won’t do that and I can’t see KBin doing anything obviously wrong.

Lemmy has had some really weird bugs, an expectation that Lemmy hadn’t escaped a block of code at a set point so they escape it and KBin is escaped would seem the most likely candidate.

The easiest test would be seeing how it renders on an alternate KBin instance, you would expect the extra characters to show up there, if they don’t its probably Lemmy

deleted by creator

The admins to perform upgrades, monitoring, fixes, etc… will require root access to the database. That means they can alter all your posts to say *blah blah blah" if they wanted.

Similarly passwords will be encrypted within the database and encryption algorithms have to be able to go in both directions. Normally they need a seed value to start random generation. The admin defines the seed as a result an admin can decrypt everything in the database.

@ergoplato I didn’t suggest that.

Personally I don’t think its ego. I think you have two issues.

The first is people go through stages learning DevOps. Stage 1 has people deploy a CI because its cool, they build a few basic pipelines and then 90% of people get bored. The 2nd stage is people start extending those pipelines, it results in really complex pipelines requiring lots of unique changes based on the opinion of the writer. You move to the 3rd stage when your asked to recreate/extend for a new project and realise how specific your solutions are.

Learning how to make minor tweaks and hook in a few key points to get what you want takes years. Without that most packagers will want to make big changes upstream which won’t go down well.

The second issue, I have met quite a few developers who become highly stressed when the build system is doing something they haven’t needed to do or understand.

A really simple example I have a Jenkins function which I tend to slip into release pipelines, it captures the release version and creates a version in Jira.

I normally deploy it first as a test before a few other functions to automate various service management requirements.

Its surprising how many devs will suddenly decide every problem (test failed, code failed review, sharepoint breaks, bad os update, etc…) is due to that function.

For me this little function is a test, if the team don’t care I will work to integrate various bits. If they freak out, I’ll revert decide if it is worth walking them through the process or walk away.

One of the reasons for the #DevOps movement is developers see building and packaging as #notmyjob.

The task would historically fall on the most junior member of the team, who would make a pigs ear out of it due to complete lack of experience.

This is compounded by the issue that most C/C++ build systems don’t really include dependency management.

Linux distributions have all tried to work out those dependency trees but they came up with slightly different solutions. This is why there are a few “root” distributions everything branches from.

That means developers have to learn about a few root distributions to design a deb/rpm/aur package systems to base their release around.

That is a considerable amount of learning in a subject most aren’t interested in.

The real question is why don’t package maintainers upstream a packaging solution?

With a lot of TV from that era you have to accept the first season is the show figuring itself out. 4 episodes, really isn’t enough.

The best approach is just to skip boring chunks/episodes and move on to the next. Then when your hooked going back is worth it.

With Stargate while its an episodic format, events in past episodes are incorporated and it slowly starts building a complex universe.

Atlantis starts in SG1 season 5 and there are constant events in one series affecting the other one as a result.

The script is causing poor behaviour by subverting the purpose of the up/down vote system.

The downvote button should be used to indicate a post doesn’t add to the conversation. It isn’t a dislike/disagree button, your supposed to comment in those situations.

I try to put effort into my comments, when they get randomly downvoted for no reason it can be upsetting.

Obviously you upset the mod and they overreacted, but your behaviour triggered the event.

This is traditional British food, bangers is slang for Pork Saussage (Cumberland Saussage I am guessing)

It’s explained in the article

They basically made it law so the only regulation was “informed consent”, with informed consent you can launch private missions.

Government and private bodies were supposed to come together to come up with sensible rules. No one has done that.

So once the law passes nothing will really change, except government bodies will be required to figure out a framework to qualify private launches