Great concept for the ever increasing food demand the United States has for beef and proteins. Not sure how it will stack up to totally transparent farm to fork proteins like Meat The Butchers offers. https://latechnews.org/meat-the-butchers/
People should look at FB for what it is. A big shopping mall where everyone goes to walk around and hang out. Don't like what goes on in FB. Stop using it.
What a weirdly tangential thing to point out given the content of the article. Is it possible to write a post on HN that isn't pointlessly critical of Facebook, or have we dropped the facade of "intelligent discussion" when it comes to things that the hivemind doesn't like?
> Is it possible to write a post on HN that isn't pointlessly critical of Facebook, or have we dropped the facade of "intelligent discussion" when it comes to things that the hivemind doesn't like?
I don't represent or consult any hivemind when I look at corporations, especially the winky-smiley "let's connect the world!" with jaded cynicism – but my conscience.
> Is it possible to write a post on HN that isn't pointlessly critical of Facebook
Mostly it is just impossible for there to be a story about FB on HN that doesn't have a bunch of people tripping over themselves to tell everyone they don't use FB.
Being a trend setter or a trend spotter. Not an easy talent but what it takes to create supply and or demand in the consumer market. Much of that time should be spend on marketing and acquisition.
That is something I've dream of but in California that is not possible from the research I've done. I live in Los Angeles county. If someone knows something otherwise please let me know. Thanks Rich
What? It literally says that it's possible in California in the article.
"In California, this option is called the “Law Office Study Program” (rule 4.29 under the state bar’s legal code). All lawyers seeking to forego law school must meet the following stipulations..."
I thought you could do this in California by apprenticing with a lawyer. No idea if this is still the case, but I vaguely remember reading about this a while back.
Ariane currently has a better reliability record than SpaceX. Cost isn't everything - saving $100M on a $10B satellite like the JWST (which will use an Ariane) doesn't do you any good if the $10B evaporates in a launch failure.
As of now, Ariane has 82 successful flights and a partial failure. If the plans of SpaceX pan out, they will have about 60 successful flights by the end of 2018, with no partial failures, so it becomes harder to compare. They could even reach parity with Ariane by the time JWST launches.
JWST is a payload nobody wants to be responsible for blowing up, I don't think SpaceX necessarily wants it on their roster. Even a 1% chance of failure could be too much for what would be a public confidence disaster, likely to cut off significant govt funding and hamper long term prospects.
Ariane 5 had two failures and 3 partial failures, I'm only referring the the most recent streak of successes which Ariane just broke, and comparing with the same from SpaceX.
For those curious: CRS-7 was a resupply mission for the ISS, had a bunch of miscellaneous cargo on it (a bunch of food, experiments, etc.) Nothing too important as far as I can tell. 99% American/European/Japanese supplies. And a single thing for the Russians: a wrench :)
Amos-6 was an Israeli communications satellite that would've provided satellite internet over Europe and Africa.
Amos-6 was an interesting one only because it blew up in the ground days before launch. Ultimately, it was SpaceX's responsibility, but does it count as a "launch failure"?
