Carl Sagan

Exactly this. As an example, when Musk paid whatever it was ($45bn?) for Twitter, there was vitriolic condemnation from many Musk haters saying why doesn't he use that $45bn to solve world poverty instead? Yet, curiously, I didn't hear a single one of those critics ask why the people Musk gave the $45bn to, didn't then use it to solve world poverty. The inescapable conclusion has to be that these people are simply more interested in hating on Musk than actually doing anything to solve world poverty.

This is obviously a credible view, and I know others who advocate it. There's a lot of sense in your post. I would say the need to push now is because the window is short. If we don't do this soon, it may well be we never manage it. That's partly because there will never be a good short- or even medium-term economic argument to do it. In the long term it's obviously beneficial, but no governments plan 100-200 years ahead. Then, after all the progress made by science and technology and the massive improvement in the Human condition they have wrought, we've reached a strange moment when many are turning away from that. It's a dangerous time with people openly talking about degrowth, and also actively shutting down scientific enquiry when it's seen as working against contemporary cultural values. But I would also say that the "Given the problems we face on this planet" line is unfair and ridiculous. Given the problems we face on this planet, why don't we give up football/videogames/archaeology/music/television etc to solve them? Why pick on space exploration? Especially when it's through space exploration, for instance studying atmospheres on Venus and Mars, and better measuring our own world, that we're also far better placed to address problems on Earth.

After our lovely win away at Exeter: The key two matches: Bolton 2 Wycombe 1 Portsmouth 3 Cambridge 1 Playoff contenders: Oxford 4 Wigan 2 Shrewsbury 1 Barnsley 1 Stevenage 2 Bristol Rovers 3 Table based on points per game: Portsmouth p33 pts69 ppg2.09 projection96 Bolton p30 pts62 ppg2.07 projection95 DERBY p32 pts63 ppg1.97 projection91 Barnsley p31 pts57 ppg1.84 projection85 P'Boro p31 pts56 ppg1.81 projection83 Oxford p32 pts55 ppg1.72 projection79 Stevenage p31 pts53 ppg1.71 projection79 There is now a clear top 2, and a clear 4-7, and then there's us halfway between the two groups. We'll need several wins in a row to likely close the gap and put us in the mix. For instance, if we win the next four games we move to 2.08 ppg.

Excellent result. Congrats to the manager and players. There is a bit of a top three breakaway - we're still significantly behind when you look at Bolton's games in hand, but if we can catch the other two our goal difference might even end up as a telling factor. Fourteen games to go, at least ten more wins needed. Come on you Rams!

The solar system is just a stepping stone. As more technologies develop, we will go beyond, but you can't run before you can walk. And Mars has all the raw materials to be viable. And as much land mass as all the continents on Earth. And Human nature and Humans ourselves will evolve - who knows what wonders our descendants will become. But we are here alive at the start of it all. The time future Humans and postHumans will look back on and thank us for.

The reasons to go to Mars versus, say, Antarctica, are (at least) threefold. One is that we currently inhabit a closed system, even with Antarctica. And it's widely acknowledged Earth has already exceeded what's called its "carrying capacity", meaning we're already overloaded. Unsustainable over and medium time frame, either we need more raw materials or we opt for degrowth, which means your children having a terrible time of it, and their children way worse. And, as Humans squabble over what's left, they'll probably destroy themselves. Which takes us onto the next point, that by not having all our eggs in one basket, even if something terrible happened to Earth, Humanity, creativity, intelligence and more could go on. Once we build a society away from Earth on Mars, it's far easier to build other off-world colonies. Then, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky once wrote: "Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever" Going to Mars frees us from this cradle of the mind. It gives us a whole new frontier to stimulate dynamism and creativity. It gives us a whole new view of our place in the Universe. Leaving behind the parochial mindset that Earth is somehow special and the only place for Humans, it transforms us with a new mindset, to boldly go and spread complexity, goodness, curiosity, art, science and love out among the stars. Given the potential numbers of Humans and post-Humans who can live after us, going to Mars now is the most ethical thing we can do, as it will lead to the most good being done in the future Universe.

Not a fan of ubiquitous surveillance, but David Brin's The Transparent Society is probably the most hopeful model of the future. https://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/transparentsociety1.html

Ship 28 and Booster 10 were stacked together on the Orbital launch mount last night in preparation for the 3rd integrated Flight Test. I'd expect it early in March, but there's still a chance we'll see something this month. Ship 28 is one of the last first-generation Starships. A few others have also been built, but SpaceX has already begun constructing a newer model. At this stage all the ships and boosters are expected to fail at some point in the flight or, if not, they'll be ditched in the sea. It won't be until later in the year until we start seeing these land on their return from orbit.

Some good points. But I'm afraid I don't really care about the branding - I still call it Twitter. Yes you're right verification is a mess. I'd say it always has been, and it's hard to instigate a fair "verification by degree of fame" system, but part of the reason for the current system is obviously financial. Same as ads. I've no problem with "pay to be seen". If you want a free service, why are they obligated to make it as good as a paid service? As I said, I haven't seen a difference, and the fee is very, very small. I remember original Twitter always trying to muck around with and curate my feed. Hated it - always avoided it then. Similarly I ignore "for you" now. I'd say KT Hopkins is the right's version of Carol Vorderman. They should indeed both be allowed on the platform. No one is forced to follow them. Current ads and subscription fees are partly down to online campaigns from various Bamfords trying to stop corporations advertising on Twitter. Because they hate Musk, despite all the amazing good he's done for the world. And those craven corporations cowtow and stop. Twitter needs money from somewhere to keep itself running. Blame the people who shut down its income stream, despite being a massively popular site. Surely by now we're all immune to ads to an extent? I don't really see them. Finally, something that really heartens me about Twitter, despite our deeply polarized world, is that whenever I look at what's trending (generally, not for me) it's almost always football. Meaning it's clearly where most people still discuss the beautiful game. And that gives me some hope for the future.

@cstandis right about all the Tesla shorters. They lost a lot of money. And here's a piece saying the Model Y would fail when it's now the world's bestselling car: Without Musk, we would not have electric cars and a future of sustainable transport. The whole idea was continually dismissed by traditional manufacturers. Tesla was only started to try to push them towards electric vehicles, but they refused, even when Tesla made its patents available for free, so Musk had to do it himself. The world should be grateful. In the context of space, there was huge vitriol from the traditional space community that SpaceX had been awarded a human spaceflight contract by NASA, with Boeing demanding they be given all the money for this. Today, SpaceX brought four more astronauts back to Earth from the space station. Boeing hasn't managed to take anyone on its unsafe competitor yet. The then world's richest man Jeff Bezos founded his space company before SpaceX, but has never managed to launch a single thing to orbit. Almost everyone laughed at Musk for attempting what he has, but SpaceX is now clearly 10 years ahead and innovating faster. You say, David, you wish Musk stuck to cars and rockets. But Musk thinks very deeply about the future of our species. And his contention for us to survive and thrive is that we need sustainability on Earth, a vibrant space culture, and also the ability for the free exchange of ideas as a society. Hence buying Twitter. It is the increased connectivity of humanity that has led to Human progress, and he is trying to protect that. I see very little difference between old twitter and new twitter, expect people who the establishment wanted silenced are no longer silenced. There are still the amazing scientific and intellectual threads on Twitter, and without it as a platform much would be censored. As I said, it's not perfect, but Musk is held to different standards to other people, and is doing OK with it, while also having to run Tesla and SpaceX. Not bad overall.

There is a bottom line that the nature of social media is triggering, polarizing and manipulative. Because of the vast amounts of data it collects and the lightning fast way algorithms work, and the fact we have not had millions of years to evolve alongside such machine intelligences, we have few defences against them. Meaning we all do stupid things on social media from time to time, that we probably regret. And I don't think too much store should be set by that. It should be yesterday's fish and chip paper, and move on. Rather than the "offence archaeology" we often say nowadays. So largely, so what if Musk said a stupid thing on Twitter. But that said, I'll do my best to give what I think is likely the gist of Musk's thinking, hoping it's not straying too much into politics (but you did ask). As I alluded to in the above post, I feel Musk equates the deep state with what I would think of as the establishment, and one way of looking at that is "the left-leaning liberal media establishment" - which has done a remarkable job of taking over the entirety of the education system. It's a stroke of genius how ideas seen as extreme and laughable in the 1990s, such as critical race theory or trans extremism, are nowadays considered mainstream by this establishment (even if ordinary, decent people have hardly shifted in their views at all and don't believe everything should be viewed through a lens of colour, with white people always oppressors and black people always victims - or that it's fine for biological men to compete in women's sports or parade naked in girls' changing rooms, and so on). We have a massive crisis in the mental health of children, which I think is due to a perfect storm of several factors. One is the rise of social media, and many issues (especially in young girls) can be traced directly to the beginning of Instagram. Then came the pandemic and the disastrous decisions to shut down schools and isolate and not even educate children. But, in the background is the wickedness of people encouraging children to believe they were somehow born into the wrong body, and the misery they feel isn't to do with the completely normal hormone explosions of growing up and puberty which we all go through and come out the other side, but is going to be a lifelong issue. But one these people claim can be solved by mutilation, a lifelong dependence on drugs, and the necessary sterilization that comes with it. So thousands of American children undergo these procedures a year. The day will come when it will be seen as the biggest scandal that happened to children, and I hope the people responsible will pay a price for what they've done. Musk calls this the actions of the deep state, and you can see why because these crazed ideas have become embedded within the institutions of the state, making them very hard to shift. I would say it's because of the capture of the establishment by radical extremist and damaging ideologies. Just as our own Tavistock Enquiry showed. A problem in politics and two-party states is that the activists in those parties are massively extreme compared with the voters for those parties. In America, to win the nominations, you have to appeal to the activists and then it's hard to rein back and take a more sensible approach. Presidential votes are in play because this has become politicized with the Democrat activists fully embracing an extremist trans agenda. And if you are someone who has succumbed to the pressure, and taken these life-changing decisions, you are going to want to believe you did the right thing and weren't taken advantage of and lied to, so you are going to vote for the party that is shouting this from the rooftops. But, like I said, I think it's more a throwaway remark, in frustration, at the madness and denial of basic biology. Which in Musk's case as a committed futurist, is really important because it points to the end of a science-based society, which in turn points to the end of human progress.

Strange one. Seeing your post I looked through my followers and I have none of that. Am I missing out? We should understand that as one of the richest, if not the richest human, Elon lives a different, rarefied life. He's probably more normal than many multi billionaires. All his life he's voted Democrat, but when Trump (also a long-time registered Democrat) became President, he invited Musk onto the nation's Industry and Technology Committee and Musk thought he should do that. But there was so much vitriolic hate for Musk for doing that, that Musk probably thought stuff you. And, as is only natural for anyone, he reacted against that. When he bought Twitter, he saw first hand the political interference that had been going on. As he's said, it was basically an arm of the FBI, and this suggests all the other platforms are in hock to the American state. The obvious example before the last US election was the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story (now universally acknowledged as true), with anyone who tried to post about it being banned from Twitter (and everywhere else). Clearly a deliberate attempt to manipulate the American election, just as Facebook previously boasted it won Biden the election. This is the establishment at work, which Musk chooses to call the deep state. Another obvious example is with Covid, when anyone who talked about a lab leak from the largest coronavirus research institute in the world in Wuhan, was banned from every single platform. Now it's acknowledged the theory is highly plausible and most scientists (and other people I know) assume that's what happened. But taking on Twitter has been tough because of the mass advertising boycotts driven by one side of an increasingly polarized political divide. Maybe I don't see the bots because I subscribe? But I don't mind subscribing because Twitter remains the greatest site for interesting news and comment and fun. And I love the diversity of voices that are allowed. It remains a mostly left-wing site but nowadays other voices (such as Tucker's) which would be censored without Musk, and it's right they're not censored. People should be able to choose what they want to see and hear. Twitter/X is far from perfect, and frustrating at times, but it's an impossible job to make it perfect and Musk and his team are generally trying to do a good job and create a public square/space for the free exchange of ideas. The future should be a decentralized platform, like BlueSky is, but that's so small it makes it pointless to use - only the same few faces.

Several Portsmouth players out for the rest of the season. The Twitter thread:

You post a link to internet censorship and then advocate adding to it? Do you really not think all governments engage in propaganda, and it's useful to listen to a diversity of voices to better understand what is going on in the world? I've had fascinating conversations with academics who travel the globe for conferences etc, discussing how very differently the Ukraine war is reported in different countries. And how badly it's reported in the US and UK. People should be able to listen and make up their own minds, rather than being told what to believe. As @maxjamposted, there was 60 Minutes doing an interview with Putin a few years ago, but the world is now too polarized and the legacy media is on one side of that divide, and wouldn't dream of doing the same thing nowadays. But it is what a good journalist should do. Fine you might not think Tucker is a good journalist, but maybe he'll lead the way for a restoration of journalistic standards when someone else also goes out and does an interview?

I'm curious what you think is wrong with Tucker interviewing Putin. And it being broadcast live and unedited on Twitter. What brilliant transparency. Carlson has been by far the most watched political commentator in America, yet lost his voice when dumped by the legacy media. In this age of new media, he can broadcast via his own channel, but the question is also one of discoverability. Hence those broadcasts also going out on Twitter (hence the watermark to distinguish you're viewing there rather than on his personal channel). The ratings for these pieces are much higher than the political commentary across all legacy news channels in America combined. If it weren't for Musk, no one would be able to hear Tucker. Are you deciding on behalf of the very many tens of millions who tune in, that they shouldn't be able to? Surely he has a right to be heard?

Interesting point - wouldn't that be lovely? The bookies are all over the show (as Graham Richards might have said) about this, which suggests just how tight at the top it is. According to Oddschecker: To win the league: Portsmouth and Bolton are joint favourites (11/4) then Derby at 3/1. [Peterborough 6/1 then Barnsley 28/1] To get promoted: Derby are favourites at 8/15, with Portsmouth and Bolton joint second at 8/11. [Posh 5/6 then Stevenage 10/3] To finish top 2: Portsmouth (10/11) then Derby (evens) then Bolton (11/10). [Posh 2/1, Barnsley and Stevenage 12/1] So the money is saying it's a four-horse race but, after last night, Peterborough are outsiders with nothing to call between the other three.

Excellent results tonight, Peterborough seeing Olakigbe sent off before scoring 2 own goals to lose 2-1, and in-form Stevenage contriving to lose at home to Reading. Bolton's game abandoned means their fixtures continue to buildup - there might be a stage when it comes back to bite them. Two-thirds of the season down, we're looking at: Bolton 28 58pts 2.07ppg [projected 95] Portsmouth 31 63pts 2.03ppg [projected 93.5] DERBY 30 59pts 1.97ppg [projected 90.5] Peterborough 30 56pts 1.87ppg [projected 86] Barnsley 29 53pts 1.83ppg [projected 84] Stevenage 29 52pts 1.79ppg [projected 82.5] Oxford 30 51pts 1.7ppg [projected 78] Blackpool 30 46pts 1.53ppg [projected 70.5] I'd say Oxford are now out of the running for the autos - they'd need to win 14 out of their last 16 games. I think 94 points will likely get second place, which means 11 wins and 2 draws for us. Win 12 of the last 16 and we're surely over the line.

Team for tonight:

It's hardly my own metric. At the end of the season, the league table catches up with points per game to reveal the "true" positions. Effectively we're all close to 2 points a game, so if we'd all played the same amount of games, Bolton would be 3 or 4 points ahead of us, and Portsmouth 2, and we'd be a point ahead of Posh. That's the best way of objectively viewing the table right now, to judge our position.

Now we're back up in (effective) 3rd place, based on points per game, we're again faced with the question of can we push on? Will we move properly into the automatic places and, if so, can we cement our place there? Warne knows we need to haul ourselves over the 2 points per game mark, and the players know that too. Will we fall back again, or will we finally seize the opportunity? Is it a question more for the players or the manager? Is it for the manager to instill the right mindset in his players? Warne is proving himself a pragmatist and our trajectory has been upwards, but is his ceiling the playoffs or automatics? I'm so pleased we're within touching distance, but because we haven't yet gone further, I'm not totally convinced. I am more convinced that a few months ago.

I imagine a few of the academy lads will be out on loan soon, and this could be a place to keep track of them. Dajaune Brown came on in the 89th minute for Gateshead in their 0-1 win at Southend, which moved them into the National League playoff places. Let's hope he starts getting a bit more game time soon.

My take is that's unlikely to be quite enough to get over the line. We're only third at the moment (on ppg) so have to outperform one of Bolton and Portsmouth while keeping ahead of teams immediately chasing. Both Bolton and Portsmouth are above 2ppg, which suggests the second automatic place is going to be in the range of 93-96 points. So we need to win at least 11 of the last 16; 12 wins would be nice.

Only listening on Radio Derby, but that's how it sounds. "Not a game for the faint hearted." Sounded as if Adams was just booked for being fouled...

The whole thing remains a bit mysterious. We were told we couldn't buy anyone unless we sold Bird or Cashin, due to the restrictions of the EFL business plan. Warne had said Bird was integral to our promotion push, which I suppose explains the loan back. It seems likely we encouraged Max to sign for Bristol City of all people, so we could buy Niall Ennis, but then Ennis had his last-minute Stoke offer. But if we're talking about the money we are talking about, wouldn't it have been better to buy Macauley Langstaff anyway? Now Max is stuck in Bristol next season and the club has nothing to show for it and Birdy might have to run the gamut of potential boo boys back at Pride Park, especially if he puts a foot wrong. And doesn't have his options open in the summer to make a considered decision. And such a weird tweet from Derby, ending with "though". It all just feels a bit shambolic and very unsatisfactory.

If you read back I said "a shame Warne has no ability of his own, or contacts in the game, to attract players", which was shorthand for comparing him to our recent managers: Liam Rosenior, Wayne Rooney, Phillip Cocu, Frank Lampard, Gary Rowett, Steve McClaren. All of whom were well known, highly respected figures in the world of football. All of the above added something extra to the equation and could bring extra players to Derby as a result. In contrast, surely it's indisputable that Warne is a nobody in terms of his standing in the football world (he can't help that)? He doesn't possess the X-factor to separately bring players into the club. We have the most fans and the best training facilities in the division, and we're at the right end of the table, so of course players have signed for us. But none of these signings are surprising or special. It's not like Mason Mount coming to join Derby County, or even David McGoldrick and Conor Hourihane dropping down to League One to join us. I just wish he had more personal pull because, when we have no money as you say, that could make a big difference. I didn't "have a go" at him - I said it was "a shame".