Agreed with this analysis. From a European who lived in the us my strong believe is that the US needs an electoral system that leads to coalitions. While far from perfect this is way better than the two party system that incentivizes the division in the public.
Proportional representation and coalition systems lead to deadlock. Belgium and Israel have gone years between stable governments because of the failure to form a coalition. Meanwhile in Germany, it’s impossible for a voter to predict ahead of time what kind of government to expect from voting for any given party because almost any party could become coalition partners with just about any other party.
The two party system is still, in effect, a coalition system; the difference is that voters know ahead of time which coalition they’re going to get.
I don't think PR and formal coalitions have a monopoly on deadlock. The USA can have something similar whenever there's not a single party holding a trifecta, and even then between the Supreme Court and filibustering it's not really streamlined unified government.
> Meanwhile in Germany, it’s impossible for a voter to predict ahead of time what kind of government to expect from voting for any given party because almost any party could become coalition partners with just about any other party.
You have to trust that the party you're voting for will negotiate in a way that is acceptable to you. I'm not convinced that's worse than your situation in a two party system where you're guaranteed a coalition that's probably not exactly what you wanted.
> The USA can have something similar whenever there's not a single party holding a trifecta, and even then between the Supreme Court and filibustering it's not really streamlined unified government.
In a parliamentary system you don’t even have an executive branch unless you can get a coalition. And when it comes to Supreme Courts, not only does nearly every parliamentary country also have one, they sometimes have more of them. Most European countries are subject to ECtHR on top of their national supreme courts.
> You have to trust that the party you're voting for will negotiate in a way that is acceptable to you. I'm not convinced that's worse than your situation in a two party system where you're guaranteed a coalition that's probably not exactly what you wanted.
The two-party system is not really a coalition system, is it? For one, there is no way for minority factions within parties to exert effective control over the other factions, no? A prime example being how the centrist majority of the Democratic party crushed the democratic socialist faction.
Wait, them trying out if the concrete alone is strong enough to withstand the launch makes you wonder how close we are? I’m wondering about life support, producing fuel in Mars and a lot of other things, but the floor of the launch stand really does not bother me at all. People love to complain about spaceX and this gave them a great reason.
I mean intentional negligence re-framed in retrospective as a scientific test is always a good reason to complain, and if that wouldn't but a dent on the trust into a company acting responsible then people would have to be quite blind tbh.
But yes the floor of the launch pad is really not something to worry about, I mean we know how to build safe launch pads since decades, we just have to do so.
Look at it another way: if they can't even get the launch pad not to catastrophically fail and endanger the facility and all of their permits, why should we trust them to do anything else more complex much better?
True, but Falcon 9 Block V adds the partial reuse capability; while we can say that each Atlas V flew reliably once, we can say that many Falcon 9 first stages have flown reliably several times.
I love that, especially when the giants are playing and tons of people are having a good time when you are on your way home from work.
Also funny when they exit in the city and the police immediately greets them and makes them throw away any leftovers ;)
