I mean, when you have a nice long trip like these missions, we get REALLY accurate pretty quick, and there are smaller more reliable thrusters we can use to make small course corrections once we get the data on the initial thrust errors.

We've got really good computers compared to even 10 years ago.

For example, the dart mission accurately hit a 530 foot object orbiting another 2500 foot object which was 11 million kilometers from earth (1/10th of the distance from earth to mars). All were travelling at several km/s. While that isn't the type of rendezvous the ISS is looking for :) it shows the extreme accuracy we are able to achieve aligning with objects and doing orbital mechanics.

There are no technological limitations on docking with the ISS, but huge practical disadvantages as talked about above. We aren't going to spend the money designing a return ship that can slow down into a stable orbit near the ISS and then correct into a docking procedure when we can just slam into the atmosphere with a heat shield and get the data back faster, easier, and WAY cheaper.

/r/sadlycommon

If something is enough of an advantage, it can be strongly retained as mutations which deactivate it don't survive well.

If something used to be an advantage but now isn't one, it gets really complicated.

If something is a disadvantage, it is almost always lost as mutations which deactivate it spread much much faster (just another type of advantage).

The neutral one, often called "relaxed selection" is when something WAS an advantage (like synthesizing vitamin C) but isn't any longer. What happens after is super complicated. Sometimes it is retained, sometimes it is seen in a stable percentage of the population, sometimes it disappears completely. We are like....really really bad at understanding and identifying that case, doubly so when the subject isn't something big and easily studied (like losing eyesight in lightless caves) vs something so seemingly small with a lot of reliant processes and interactions (the ability to synthesize vitamin C through the GULO enzyme). Some people think the useless genes will stick around until there is a strong selection against them, some think that mutations will slowly be eroded in the population until it becomes so horrible it can't reactivate. I dunno. The interaction and transformation of genes into and by pseudogenes is a leading edge, debated subject.

So realistically, not only have we not yet found a definitive clear advantage to not producing vitamin C, we also don't even really understand how to predict what happens to things that were an advantage but aren't any longer, and we keep finding that they actually have some selective reason behind being lost after all (blindness in a cave is now thought to be probably advantageously selected for).

There are really cool studies on bats (most lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C, but some still have it, some seem to be in the process of losing it, and some lost it REALLY recently, like in the last couple million years).

Other cool studies are with Mexican tetra, which have both blind and sighted version that can interact with each other (the cave systems connect with outside water systems).

Thankfully we passed legislation in the 1960's that overnight just resolved all that past racism so that this generation can all participate in wealth accumulation in parity. You know, other than....

Higher 'credit risk' and lower credit scores, ability to secure capital lending to start small businesses, 'Black' names score worse than 'white' names in job applications, historically black segregated areas aren't desegregating much if at all, Zoning regulations in black segregated areas for 'bad house value' things like dumps, highways, industrial and manufacturing, shelters, etc are more likely to be lax, real estate agents still 'steer' black applicants towards lower value worse neighbourhoods, Blacks with equal income/wealth more likely than whites to be denied in person applications, more likely to receive a lower home evaluation during an inspection, homes in black neighbourhoods appreciate much slower, black college graduate start with about 1/7th of the wealth of a similar white college graduate, and less wealth than white dropouts, have on average about 30% more student loan debt, etc etc etc

But you know, thank god we immediately and quickly resolved all the built in racism in American infrastructure and cities almost overnight, and we should probably just all quietly agree not to be racist and the whole thing should finish equalizing around 2025. Or 2030. Maybe 2040. Definitely before 2100. What is that? Black ownership actually decreased this decade while every other race shot up and whites stayed the same? Well, 2200 without a doubt these issues will be a thing of the past.

In fairness, I think it would be weirder in a capitalist country if the vast majority of people under 25 weren't independently 'poor' in an asset sense, since they've been an adult and in the workforce for only a few years.

These stats use family/household wealth and assets anyways, so that 28 year old living at home would get grouped by their parents assets and education.

Although I knew a lot of folks living dorms who probably met some of the metrics high level concepts of poverty:

• The household has unimproved or no sanitation facility or it is improved but shared with other households.

• The household’s source of drinking water is not safe or safe drinking water is a 30-minute or longer walk from home, roundtrip.

• Any person under 70 years of age for whom there is nutritional information is undernourished.

• The household does not own more than one of these assets: radio, TV, telephone, computer, animal cart, bicycle, motorbike, or refrigerator, and does not own a car or truck. (squeaking by on computer + telephone)

• The household has inadequate housing materials in any of the three components: floor, roof, or walls.

silliness aside, that is actually part of why 'poor' people in the developed are not living in that absolute poverty, according to metrics like the MPI.

These types of metrics are used by the UN to find, study, and combat extreme, multi-faceted, acute poverty in developing countries. Here is a map of where they've done case studies for it and the results. You'll notice developed western nations ain't on it.

https://ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index/global-mpi-databank/

Access to electricity is literally one of the metrics for calculating poverty in the model they use (it isn't poverty in a purely financial sense)

So... 100% causation by definition? A direct measurement of the value?

https://ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index/

Article says it is based on MPI modelling. (health, education, living standards). That model gives you fun descriptors like "Multidimensionally poor" which just sounds like a sick burn.

It is a VERY low threshhold for poor though. "Do you have no assets but get enough calories, attend(ed) a decent amount of school, have electricity, shelter, and basic health?" You aren't UN humanitarian level poor, just normal poor.

You can find MPI reports for India online. here is 2021 AFAIK

It has some obvious gaps (can only estimate when health records aren't available for example) but it's developed by smart people with access to a lot of data with the purported goal to track and reduce extreme poverty. Make your own conclusions. It gives examples of how to calculate in the link above.

It varied from region to region, but new reports are showing that the poorest areas are gaining the most, reversing an old trend. Some had huge improvements to drinking water, others to education, attendance, and years in education, others to things like electricity and cooking fuel, others in housing + assets, and most regions saw big improvements to nutrition/caloric intake and very little improvement to child mortality.