That depends on your definition of "reused". The space shuttle cost over $450M to refurbish for each flight - disassembling and replacing large chunks of the orbiter. So, while you are technically correct (the best kind of correct), it was horribly inefficient in comparison to what SpaceX is currently doing. In fact, to refurbish a single orbiter, you could launch literally 4 fully loaded Falcon 9s, and throw them away afterwards and still come out on top.

That's a pile of crap.

They're ending software support for their OS. And they're saying "it might not work properly afterwards this date." What do you expect them to say? Hey, this thing is 10 years old, and we're not supporting it anymore, but it will keep working fine? Of course they're going to say "might not work anymore!"

Old software dies; full stop. Go try running anything else from 2010 that's reached end of life, and see what happens if you have reliability problems. In fact, Microsoft released Windows 7 in October 2009, and EOL'd it in 2020. Does it still work? Sorta. Maybe. Depends on the use case. Want to keep using it? Pay a crapton to Microsoft for extended support. And that is Windows 7, probably the single most ubiquitous operating system of all time. This is BlackBerry OS, something that was nearly obsolete a year after it's last major release.

Fuel costs are so incredibly tiny - like we're talking less than $500k for a falcon heavy. Rocketlab's stick launches for $5m, and negotiated re-flying a used falcon 9 places a flight around $50m without any exceptional costs.

While this is still a small amount of money on an SLS scale, $87.5m would get your satellite to space on a falcon 9, or probably half a dozen launches on Rocketlab's.

It won't get you to orbit on either ULA or Blue Origin though - as ULA costs too much, and Blue Origin doesn't have an Orbit-capable rocket.

Perhaps it is best to learn about, and address injustices within our own culture before going to pass judgement on others? If you think the effects of slavery in the USA have been reasonably mitigated, you're not paying attention.

I'm not saying that issues abroad do not need to be addressed, but as the saying goes, do not focus on the speck in your brother's eye...

You can absolutely choose which vaccine you get here, assuming it is available. Vaccines are going out so fast at this point, you don't get to order off the menu - if you want it, you take what's available or you wait. Most people don't wait.

This is straight up misinformation.

What in the actual fuck are you talking about?

(1) Yes, we're in lockdown. Our ICU capacity is overloaded and we're about to force doctors to choose who gets treatment, because COVID is out of control.
(2) The USA horded vaccine, and your vaccine rollout is FAR ahead of ours. So we can't get back to normal. See (1).
(3) I was not forced to get a vaccine, I ran to a place that was allowing walk-ins and I took whatever they had. I could have chosen not to do that.
(4) Fuck you.

Honestly, why do I care how they got there? To say they "didn't do it by selling cars" is disingenuous, since they ran a gross margin of 26.5% on car sales. They made 26.5% on each car they sold, then spent that money in a bunch of different ways, got some revenue from a bunch of other sources, and ended up running a small profit. Seriously, so what?

This is just looking for something to complain about now that they're running a GAAP profit. Aw it's not a real profit from your perspective? Maybe you should go back to complaining about how their cars suck (not true), or Elon Musk is a moron on twitter (true).

Or...

The issue here is where the money goes. At the moment, it goes into corporations, the wealthy, and in many cases, offshore accounts. Give it to the poor, and they will spend it, dumping money into the bottom of the economy.

The most recent aircraft carrier cost roughly $37B. That would pay for a program much better than this... $1000 a week, for TEN YEARS, for 71,000 people. Instead of raising, say, 200,000 people (3 person family) out of poverty, the USA spends it's money on it's eleventh aircraft carrier. And that is just one moderate spending program - let's not even talk about some of the others.

And this here is the fundamental issue in this entire conversation. This is barely about RMS to some, and more about screwing over a section of the population that is disliked.

RMS cannot hold the position effectively without drastically reducing the FSF ability to complete their stated mission. Full stop. This has been demonstrated by the very fact that these conversations are happening, as loudly and as presently as they are. And the choice to keep him in place is either horribly shortsighted, or an intentional statement of "fuck the snowflakes" rather than anything about the ability for the FSF to be effective.

Now, does or did RMS deserve this treatment? I honestly cannot say... but I know he cannot effectively lead anymore as a result of it.

This is exactly how you frame up global warming skepticism as a debate, rather than a fringe viewpoint. It's an intentional strategy designed to cast doubt and make it a debatable topic. Having a bunch of loud arguments on twitter is exactly how you cast doubt for people looking at the topic from the outside in, and give people who normally do not care the impression that there's a debate happening.

It's also important to point out that the reason they believe these things is because the President of the United States has been telling them for two straight months. He encouraged this viewpoint, constantly, right up until he told them to go to the Capitol to save their country.

This is not true. All trips have been said to be round-trip if you want, and likely only round trip for the first decade or so.

Ultimately backfired on Boeing, sure, but those shenanigans by Boeing did a massive amount of damage to Bombardier, and the Airbus deal was basically a "no other path to selling the C series, unless we can get a partner authorized to build and sell in the USA". It hurt us up here in Canada, and was big news. And it was clearly Boeing and the US government being in bed together to shut out a small competitor.

As twitter, I'd probably kick him off. His constant threats against twitter themselves makes me think hosting him is a fundamental threat to their business in the first place. Why give someone a pulpit inside my business to scream how they're going to destroy my business? Seems like a weird risk to take.