I have to wonder if this is actually a joke - I can think of three issues right off the bat which seems to me that would make this concept impractical:
1. Where does the horizontal velocity for orbit come from? Rockets only go straight up for a few seconds and then they tip over and start accelerating parallel to the ground to get orbital velocity. Check out Newton's diagram of a cannon on a mountain.
2. The G-forces on the payload are going to be enormous. In a normal SpaceX launch they're experiencing around 5g, I would imagine that in the centrifuge they'll be experiencing hundreds at least. Along with that, once they leave the vacuum of the centrifuge, they're going to be slamming into the atmosphere which is going to subjecting the payloads to heavy G-forces in another dimension.
3. They're going to need significant heat shielding for launch. Again, slamming into the atmosphere from the launcher at a minimum 25,000 kph (orbital velocity) is gonna generate a lot of heat.

If they do manage to secure $110M in funding, I'd love to see the presentations that they give to investors - they could probably double it by doing seminars to entrepreneurs in how to get fleece investors.

But I don't see anybody asking the question how does the screen work with face ID?

I think there is the perception that it just lights up (with infrared light) for the camera to sense the face but I suspect that it's a lot more more sophisticated than that. I'm guessing that different sections/rows/columns of the display lights up at different times to create a 3D rendering of the person's face with the light source moving and the camera acting as a fixed point.

If that's the case, then it seems wholly appropriate that the display is coupled with a proprietary microcontroller to maintain the security of the face recognition algorithm.

Probably the right question (and solution to this problem) is that the OLED displays are manufactured with the microcontroller on the glass and make the display only available from Apple - I would think that Apple's volumes would make it cost efficient. Third parties will scream that Apple is yet engaging in anti-competitive practices and not letting them buy "compatible" displays from where ever but this is a user security issue.

I always thought it would be more awesome.

More seriously, I'm guessing that the concept is to have a common platform for communicating but when you look at the great unwashed PowerPoint would be great for memes but I'm not sure about basic communications.

Of course the Microsoft Meta also as Excel, but that goes back to the previous point that it's not something for everybody or for everything.

It wasn't like it enhanced the experience of seeing the movie.

Sorry, we were expecting something better as well, but when we walked out of the theatre we were hard pressed to remember any of the music except through the end credits which felt overly dramatic for, well, credits.

Part 1 follows the theme of the book reasonably well and everybody's who supposed to be dead at the end of Part 1 is dead (I wasn't sure because of some of the big stars in the cast and, in Hollywood, star tend to get different stories than what's in the source material). I didn't think I'd like Timothée Chalamet as Paul but he's did a very good job. Rebecca Ferguson as Jessica was "meh" at best - I always pictured Jessica as being proud and regal (as she was the result of a centuries long breeding plan) and Ferguson seemed to be more like his younger sister than the mother that has prepared him for the trials of noble life. I *really* like Stellan Skarsgård as an actor, but his choice for how he played the baron can only be described as WTF.

The standout performance was by Jason Momoa as Dundan Idaho - I definitely looked at the character in a different way after his performance. Josh Brolin is going to have a very hard time to match the energy, love and wisdom that Momoa's Idaho showed.

Some scenes from the book that I thought were important to the story are deleted or compressed which is not a surprise. There is a bit more action than in the book and I found it was done quite well with a new perspective on how the shields work. Despite these changes the movie drags a bit two thirds of the way through. One thing that could be disconcerting is that some of the dialog from the book is moved to different scenes.

The (family) group I saw the film with consisted of people who had read and loved the book and a couple of people who hadn't but wanted to see something after Covid. Everybody walked away feeling like they saw something pretty good and want to got back and (re-)read the book.

Again, I like Stewart as an actor and he's surprised me in a number of roles where he was playing against type (ie "Green room") but trying to play Gurney Halleck was just wrong. It wasn't the physical attributes it was that he just can't play "jolly" - something that I always image Halleck to be except when he needs to be in action and then the character becomes a remorseless killing machine.

I love the original Bebop - I have 'way too many CDs trying to get all the music that was in the show - and pulling out the discs is a go-to for me when I have a half hour to wind down. So I have definite ideas about the show and based on the trailers I'm kind of excited about the Netflix series.

But all the winging that's going on here - if you think it's going to suck, then don't watch it as soon as it's available for streaming for the whole purpose of being able to dis what' you think is wrong with it.

I just read through the "Dune" 1984 comments and you can see quite a few people who hated it or loved it (honestly, I'm in the middle as there are aspects I thought were well done and thought provoking and others that made me absolutely cringe, for example Patrick Stewart as Gurney Halleck). When a certain amount of effort is put into a movie/show you're going to find people that love it, are in the middle or hate it.

Rather than say "this show sucks" before it's "dropped" comment on the trailer which I thought was fun and, for me, showed Faye in a bit of a different light (in the original I don't think she ever fought except in her fighter) why don't you wait until there's something actual to watch?

I thought that was one of the worst casting decisions in history.

I like Patrick Stewart as an actor, but he was about as wrong a Gurney Halleck as possible (and that includes casting a five year old girl for the part).

https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Gurney_Halleck

High Five! A Covid and Computer Security reference in one line!

There fixed it for you.

Only a real man with balls of titanium would fly into space dressed like that.

I'm sure they keep track of many different measurements of viewers' habits and the 2 minute one is probably the one that gives them the best bragging rights on "Squid Games".

What's interesting is that all the people I know who gave up and didn't want to see any more, did so at around episode 7. So by using your 50% duration criterion, they'd all be considered as having "watched".

I think the best metric will be how many will watch season 2.

Sorry, you're right I meant the 407.

If I want to go across Toronto in anything other than the dead of night, chances are I'm going to be caught in construction or traffic and I'm going to be spending a lot of my time sitting in my car waiting. Probably the most gas efficient route is to use the 427 toll highway but that's not cheap (which is why it's not heavily loaded and avoids sitting in your car with the engine running) - using it will add at least $10 to the cost of the trip. To use it from my house in the west end of the city to my father's (23.5km), just east of the middle will cost $12.16 according to the online cost calculator. I know a lot of other cities in North America have exactly the same options.

So, I can't think that very many people will use this tool if the answer results in a higher pocketbook cost even though you are saving putting a bit of carbon in the atmosphere.

He was well and truly mourned - take a look at the /. archives.