The classifieds in the back of newspapers are a type of ad that helped normal people buy/sell their stuff and paid for actual journalism.

Some ads are ok. Advertising as a concept is very broad.

And the US applies its tax laws to all US citizens worldwide and coerces foreign financial institutions into compliance.

We (in the US) should be bringing out the pitchforks for this nonsense but I have never seen another American not living overseas care in the slightest.

I've replied to a few comments here pointing out why NZ and Canada would be considered both on the same footing as part of the Empire but also not at the same time.

Unlike, say the US, independence for the former Dominions isn't something you can pin point to one event. It is mostly a slow evolution of the legal environment and cultural separation over the course of more than a century. (In NZ's case you could argue that it took 163 years, or is not done yet because reasons.)

The actual difference between the Canadian "expedition" and the one that included Hillary is that the Canadian one was just some dude. One guy that wanted to try his luck, whereas the British one was organised (and I believe paid for) in Britain. It just happened to have a Kiwi on it.

Thanks, that explains it well. It seems it's less about who climbed but more so who funded the climb. I daresay though they'd still have claimed the Canadian as a Commonwealth victory if he'd summited and likely knighted him too like they did Hillary.

And NZ competed at the Olympics in 1920.

If Canada counts as not the Crown, then so does NZ.

It's a major oversight for an article on this subject.

And NZ adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947, so was on the same footing as Canada with respect to claiming the "first to the top" title.

Yeah but New Zealand also separately declared war in World War II, so if that is your yardstick then there is still no difference between a Kiwi and a Canadian getting there first.

Tourism? That's the only thing that even approaches realistic that I can think of.

I guess my question wasn't so much "What is a realistic solution?" but more "Would we even recognize a realistic solution if it were presented to us?"

The enterprise of starting a colony on Mars is so unprecedented that any economic solution sounds nuts.

I think the only realistic answer at this point is "We need more information".

The problem with the Martian tourism is the huge amount of time it takes - around 3 year round trip with current conventional rockets; this proposed nuclear rocket would cut travel time to 2 months one way, but you are still looking at a 4 month minimum just in travel time. A billionaire who could afford a Martian vacation would likely struggle to take the time out of their schedule for one. This is why I think lunar tourism is much more viable: a vacation on the Moon need only take 2 weeks (a week of travel time and a week there; and nuclear propulsion could cut the travel time substantially)

It takes 2 months in near-ideal winds to cross the Atlantic by (non-modern ultralight) sail, yet that sort of travel was done pretty regularly for business.

When steam engines decreased that time to 16 days, 200-passenger ships crossing Atlantic purely for tourism were very popular.

It once was a tradition for the English upper classes to send their young sons on a "grand tour" of the Continent, which would last for many months, sometimes even a year or two.

So, yes, some billionaire paying for their kid to spend 12-18 months on a Mars trip is a possibility. Or maybe even for themselves if they retire, or as a sabbatical.

However, I think the much greater time and expense is going to make Martian tourism a much smaller market than lunar tourism.

I think in the medium term, the Moon is a much more feasible destination for humans than Mars is. It is much easier for an ultra-wealthy person to take a few weeks out of their schedule for a trip to the Moon, than months or years for a trip to Mars. Since it is only a bit over a light-second away, they could even quite feasibly work remotely from there – the delay is small enough that real-time audio and video calls are possible. Mars is 3–22 light minutes, which forces all communication to be asynchronous.

Sure, it's almost like you need to exercise judgement when selecting metrics and planning your work.

Right, but that means it's not a decent starting measure.

To me, "decent starting measure if there is no appetite for something more in-depth" sounds like "just drop it in, it's enough to get started, we'll figure out the rest later", but that could be temporarily harmful.

Exercising judgment is the opposite of that, no? Then you're going into depth.

> Take that to it's extreme and you see that code can be simplified down to nothing without anything being destroyed.

I disagree. The thing being destroyed is readability and common understanding with your fellow programmers.

My point was that removing code (not just reformatting it) without changing behavior is a gain, not a loss. Art is the opposite.

That tells me that the code itself is not important; the task/instructions the code performs is the important part. Therefore code is a utility, not an artform.

Yes I want written instructions to be understandable to humans, so my code conforms to tool-enforced formatting standards 100% of the time, not subject to artistic interpretation.

I said this elsewhere: never wear gloves with roots that rotate.

Drill, table saw, router, belt sander are all big no-nos.

Orbital sander is about the only power tool I'd be comfortable wearing gloves with.

How do you prevent your bare hand from getting abraded when it accidentally brushes up against the sanding belt, drill bit, or other fast moving parts of the tool? Yes, I know, exercising caution is always a great idea, but accidents do happen, right?

I have a bench grinder that I use to clean rust off various pieces of metal, and you'd better believe I wear gloves when using it. My reasoning is that the chance of accidentally touching the grinding wheel is high, and a glove will prevent most injuries, while the chance of the glove getting wound around the grinding wheel is near zero because it doesn't take much pressure to stop the wheel. Am I wrong?

How does this uncommon knowledge become common sense?

Took me long enough to LEARN to wear gloves, now I have to unlearn it in specific cases :)