> "Passive magnetic attitude stabilization was performed by carrying two bar magnets to align with the Earth's magnetic field in order to provide a favorable antenna footprint."
Wow! I heard of this technique recently but I didn't realize it had already been deployed so long ago.
Please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamebait to HN, regardless of how strongly you disagree with or feel about something. It leads to significantly lower-quality discussion. Perhaps you don't owe them better, but you owe this community better if you're posting here.
"you can make *ignorant* people believe just about any message if you deliver it a certain way and often enough."
I don't want to be 'that guy' but even smart and well informed people can be manipulated with the right techniques. Anyone can be manipulated and none of us should ever think we are immune. We're all human.
Furthermore the belief that I, a smart and well informed person, am immune to manipulation is a vulnerability those seeking to manipulate you can exploit.
You're right of course. We're all susceptible. I still maintain that ignorance is the dry kindling to misinformation's fire, while a well-educated populace is more like damp log.
While I agree that everyone can be manipulated and we should never consider us immune to manipulation, I would still argue that certain groups of people are more easily manipulated.
I doubt anyone thinks that, expect that some people who say they are patriots believe that Pelosi is acting detrimentally when it comes to the common good in America. That is a reasonable criticism in general. Politics involves a great deal of claiming that someone else’s policies are detrimental. No one would claim Putin is “more aligned”, only perhaps less of a danger. They may also believe that Putin is at least instrumentally better for Russia than Pelosi is due America.
So that would be the impact causing injury. Not stepping in front of a car. If you are insinuating that the impact was caused by stepping in front of a car then fine. But stating a direct causation is careless.
> "She says the legislation would set target dates of 10 per cent zero-emission sales by 2025, 30 per cent by 2030, and 100 per cent by 2040."
They are doing something within ten years.
Trying to ban all gas cars that quickly, apart from being infeasible, would be self-defeating because it would cause a backlash that would elect anyone who promised to undo the changes.
Wow! I heard of this technique recently but I didn't realize it had already been deployed so long ago.