Of course I would then propose that our goal isn't forever striving to become an abstraction. I don't set out every day to become perfection, I set out to become a perfect person. I can't achieve it, but that is my true goal. Become a person who is perfection. This implies that my highest goal, my God, is ... A person.
Maybe that is circular reasoning or has some other logical flaw, but in order to become what I wish to become, it is highly advantageous that I believe it.
Rules for life
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Even for an atheist these are logically necessary. Think of God simply as that which is infinitely Good, Beautiful, and True. The important thing is that you set your ideal infinitely far away and that you set that ideal as your highest goal. I.E. that which you love most.
That way when faced with difficult choices, you always choose actions that lead in the same direction. If you set your highest goal at any point shy of infinity you will be subject to cosign errors and can even end up working backwards to achieve it. You end up circling the drain.
Continually ponder perfection and chase after it.
Thanks for doing that. I've wanted to try for awhile. I also don't care super much about compliance. If you are building something new and distributed that you want to compete with centralized services you have to do the optimal thing. There is a lot of headroom available to do more on smaller devices by being clever. Use a compressed byte format instead of json for instance. Prepackage all your data in packet sized chunks so you can route it instantly without processing etc.
Does it matter how big the thing you are signing is? Also what do you mean by "within" are you actually swapping out SHA-512 for BLAKE3 in the EdDSA algorithm or do you mean that you are signing BLAKE3 hashes with a standard EdDSA algorithm like ed25519?
Though having kids is an excellent way to study nature.
Something tells me you don't have kids.
Short term benefit does tail off with distance but long term prospects improve. It is all about how many trials you can run. Places that are too remote for data exchange in a lifetime can run some uncontaminated trials. The best ideas will spread through whatever slow channels exist.
With 10,000 stars you can fit plenty of humanity within 100 light-years, 100 million light-years encompasses over a thousand galaxies.
My steelman is that I love people, all life really, but people are especially awesome.
Let's take a detour to discuss nostr. Nostr can only exist because some small fraction of the population is interested in freedom tech, but 8 billion people is enough that even that small fraction can have a community. Now extrapolate to even more niche interests you have. I am sure some haven't met critical mass yet. Imagine having enough humans that even your most arcane hobby was a large thriving community where people could make a living suppling quality content. We don't want billions of humans, we want Trillions.
This dovetails nicely with my faith. I am a Catholic. I believe in cooperating with nature to fill the earth with life. I have six children as a result. I don't believe earth is near carrying capacity for humans. More people = more solutions.
But if we aren't over-populated now, with enough Catholics doing Catholic things we will be at some point. So in a way I guess you could say that the logical conclusion to any faith, that makes cooperating a with nature a moral imperative, is that moving out to the stars is also a moral imperative.
The thing is that version on the future is awesome. Humans aren't going to go alone and strew candy wrappers everywhere, we are going to bring our plants and pets. We are going to bring panda bears and bald eagles. Everything that was on a track for extinction with the swelling sun will instead fill the universe with color, stories, and love. And that is what I want, a universe brimming with love.
The thing is we don't actually want to make a biosphere 2 on Mars. It is an interesting science experiment, but engineering madness. You'd engineer the passive conditioning with plants sure, but you'd also have two additional ECLS systems, a closed loop system for efficiency and an open loop system for error correction. It doesn't need to be as artificially hard as biosphere 2. Though I think they did open the loop a few times.
Ok. Now I want to hear more of your opinions on the topic.
This isn't necessary. The rate at which atmosphere is stripped by solar wind is too slow for human time-scale to notice. Also the role in magnetic fields protecting against radiation is over stated. Most of that is physically blocked by the planet on one side of you and the atmosphere on the other.
Granted the atmosphere is thin, but the daily dose of radiation is fairly low. Most arguments depend on a lifetime dose being high. But that's a bit like claiming that I'll drown in the 10,000 gallons of water that I'll drink over the course of my life. Yes radiation damage does accumulate more that water, but our bodies do have repair mechanisms that make life-time dose nowhere near equivalent to a short term dose.
One of the biggest benefits of astroid (or lunar) mining is that most of its value derives from not being on earth. At Falcon 9 prices of roughly $3000/kg you'd lose most of the value by bringing it to earth.
We need in-space markets. Giant rotating stations preferably.
Yup. Just the few that were part of proto planet cores that got blasted are useful, but those very much so.
I saw calculations once that showed, no matter your plan to induce a field, it would take on the order of 100,000 years for the field to stabilize. The planet fights back with an opposing field until you can saturate all the layers. Mumble mumble skin effect or something.
Designing Space Stations?
Yes. Nuclear pulse is better. Magnetic confinement might work for fusion but it would be tricky for fission. You'd have to let your nuclear fuel melt or even vaporize to get hot enough. That'd be a bear to regulate without control rods.
You can do nuclear electric with ion engines, but those are such low thrust that they'd still be slower than chemical in the inner solar system. Could be very attractive for missions to the outer planets though.