BAE systems is responsible for about 15% of production, things from rear fuselage etc.
Rolls-Royce builds the LiftSystem for the F-35B variant.
Martin-Baker builds the ejection seats for all F-35s.
Leonardo builds the wing sets.
Rheinmetall is planning to build fuselage for a large number.
Kongsberg developed the Joint Strike Missile meant to be carried inside the fuselage to maintain stealth profile while engaging targets at long ranges.
This is a really interesting 'first thought'. "Designed for export"
Not the typical mindset of someone wanting true superiority through military power. Makes you think twice.
The F35 is expensive, keeps the defense apparatus going, and ultimately gets paid for by other countries. F22 barely reached production, so F47 will be interesting.
The F-35 is cheap for what it is capable of. F-22 and F-47 are immaterial. And the export F-35 is nerfed to some extent.
The unfortunate reality, which the US is exploiting, is that Europe would struggle to produce an equivalent of the nerfed F-35, never mind one that hadn’t been nerfed. As a consequence, the US can sell nerfed F-35s all day. There aren’t many alternatives currently. 4.5 gen aircraft aren’t competitive in a serious conflict and everyone knows it. Even the US has to contend with that reality.
This is probably a play to make X more invest-able, probably combined with some training data rule he foresees in the future.
Musk's companies have raison d'être, and the mergers (SCTY & TSLA) generally have one too.
X has been bleeding money, but has no access to cash. AI on the other hand he can peddle to sovereign wealth funds, apply for government grants, etc. X then becomes a write off against a larger company. xAI seems to be a pretty small company though; linkedin gives me 11-50 employees, which is pretty small for a DIY scaled LLM company worth (WHAT?!)...
Well some VCs are going to be happy. Or sad. Either way, they'll likely need to mark down their fund.
Need to work on both high tech and low wage opportunities at the same time. Without having high tech there will be a bigger brain drain, many people that gets educated or starts a business with higher ambitions will leave as soon as they can. Having high tech opportunities slows down the brain drain and increases the potential to create different industries that support the country. Also as there will be many first in the country such as building a satellite there will be more potential to grow for anyone wanting to enter that industry even if the current economic benefit is lower than say other countries. For instance USA can grow mostly from developing new technology and their population growth (traditionally from immigration), A country like Botswana can grow from improving their current infrastructure (education, catching up in technology etc) AND new technology and population growth. First movers will get a bigger piece of the pie an have long term benefit. This is a bit simplified but should give a picture of how this would benefit Botswana.
> This initiative will enable BIUST to build a sustainable pipeline of space technology projects while facilitating hands-on learning opportunities for students and researchers
Having been part of a student satellite program, and having subsequently built my career on it, I can tell you that there is nothing more efficient at teaching students than giving them a bunch of money and telling them to build a satellite.
This satellite will be operated for many years by many students who will learn practical knowledge about satellites.
Politically stable, relatively low corruption and economical acceptable. They are doing many things well relative to the rest of Africa. On the other hand, 30% of their women have HIV.
With the current generation of HIV drugs, most of those women should live into their 60s (at least). Also, the latest generation can get HIV virus counts to below testable densities. I expect their HIV issues to be resolved over the next 30-50 years, where the number of new cases will fall dramatically, and almost no one will die from AIDS-related causes.
With adherence to the drug regimen the current prognosis is even better than that at 75 years of life expectancy. The problem is adherence to the regimen is hard and lack of adherence means you’re a potential spreader again. That being said I believe Botswana has 90%+ of its hiv positive population on ART drugs.
Botswana is one of the few countries that focused little on revenge politics, and they are a shining example of forgiveness and tolerance (relatively speaking, they do have problems - as does every place on Earth). South Africa was doing well, but sadly Mandela couldn't stay in power forever. Africa isn't the only place where you see it, why we've just witnessed a cousin of that political style come into power in a country that has significantly further to fall. They even started with spending money and bureaucracy on renaming places, which is my personal canary.
You'd be surprised how little a 3U Endurosat bus and a rideshare costs...
Not sure exactly how essential indigenous Earth Observation capabilities are for Botswana, but Botswanan engineers who worked on it and their university would actually be pretty well placed for future collaboration with low cost satellite component manufacturers in South Africa...
The USA has almost a million homeless people, no practical healthcare system for its population, yet spends humongous amounts on its military industrial complex every year.
You can do many things at a time. Technology can actually solve the hunger problem by making their agriculture more efficient. Also these local engineers who worked on this will go on and do great things for their country down the line.
How does a country move out of poverty without engineering and education? If Botswana had a moon program or its own rocket program, I could see the argument, but launching a small sat. Doesn't seem that wrong.
I think many people, myself included, would argue that that's immoral. The fact that you don't want to pay for access to The New Yorker is fine, but it doesn't mean that we should facilitate your desire to not pay, and that we've effectively normalized ignoring even reasonable copyright rules is a real problem for the industry (we can argue about the merits all we like, but pretending we shouldn't have to pay for an article with little public interest, published this week, is pretty absurd).
We can look at aggregators like HN as a way to curate who you should be giving your money to, or we can use them to facilitate infringement, making publishers rely on sketchier and sketchier methods to stay afloat.
start paying for your news. you won't regret it.
three decades of free news leave you hanging bored
and annoyed and misunderstanding humanity.
if you want to stay tethered to this reality, commit to the pot. it's recursive and cumulative. otherwise you are left to research from free sources which leave you in 'directed' narratives, divergent and polarizing, devouring your fallacies while feeding off your bias.
free beer is never a better of the available choices.
I agree we should pay but, I'm on the other side not paying because it's very hard to commit to so many subscription things. Back in the day I'd buy a bunch of magazines and would have subscription for tops 3 when I was really into the publication. Nowadays almost everything seems to want to be a subscription service and comes with some shady practices that really scared me away and assume I'm not a rare case either.
> shady practices that really scared me away and assume I'm not a rare case either.
Definitely not the only one, which is ground for discourse, and a source for content, money, critical thinking, improvement and cognitive and linguistic mechanics that help others find their POV ...
... it's not just what it is, it's mostly what it is not and if you can put it in words and or find creators with guts, turn it into a sweeper ...
This is the kind of article that needs to get into national culture. We gotta change the way we live. I don't know how to get it to happen, but we need more people doing this.
People need to stop being fucking pussies and actually engage with dumb arguments. It seems people these days are so conflict averse that no one ever speaks up. "We all have our opinions!" Yeah, and sometimes they are stupid.
Yeah, but even things like biking to school. Nothing to do with conflict.
Currently we're a 39 minute walk from school; a little long for a kid at age 8.
We're like a 10 minute drive, in traffic with lights etc, and I think basically a 10 minute bike ride. There isn't a good biking system because the roads are set up like a grid, and there's no walking path through it.
I think for biking culture to thrive you need bike only or bike/ped paths, otherwise you end up having to bike on busy streets or stop at many intersections.
I'm going to try to organize something like a mini bike bus in my neigborhood.
It’s definitely a little odd to have M3 Ultra > M4 Max, but I feel like anyone complaining about this must have never bought any other manufacturers’ wares in their lives. Obtuse complication is kind of the norm in this industry.
Oh, but things were far worse back then, in terms of knowing what you were getting. For instance, let's say you bought a 13" MacBook Pro in 2016. Do you have a dual core or quad core processor? Depends on whether you have a touchbar!
(For reasons best known to themselves, Apple made two completely different 13" MBPs that year, both new, with the loathed butterfly keyboard, weighing a different amount, with different processors, and the same name.)
Literally not even the same thing you're comparing. There were more processor and graphics options. Want an i5, i7, or i9 and what about a RX 580, 5300, 5500, 5700, or 5700XT?
Rolls-Royce builds the LiftSystem for the F-35B variant.
Martin-Baker builds the ejection seats for all F-35s.
Leonardo builds the wing sets.
Rheinmetall is planning to build fuselage for a large number.
Kongsberg developed the Joint Strike Missile meant to be carried inside the fuselage to maintain stealth profile while engaging targets at long ranges.