I don't really think it's incumbent on me to prove to you that the perspectives of myself and others are valid.

That said, have you tried to find a non-astroturfed product review for literally anything these days? Have you not noticed how Google -- who used to have the philosophy of getting you off their page as quickly as possible -- has plastered search results with "panels", using data stolen, err, I mean "borrowed", from actual webpages, and frequently directing you to other Google products and services? The last bit is the straw that broke the anti-trust camel's back on both sides of the Atlantic.

That's just Search. If you've worked with G-Suite/Workspace, you're well aware of the anti-consumer changes they've made to that product over the years. If you've come to rely on any Google products as part of your personal or professional workflow, you've probably had the discomforting experience of having the rug pulled out from under you. Is it really a wonder how they managed to go from being hip, cool, and disruptive, to the focus of so much ire?

I weirdly prefer working with Microsoft, despite their countless flaws/problems, and that's saying a lot. If you had told me 10 years ago that I'd feel that way I would have laughed in your face and asked how high you were. Hell, I became an Apple user because of a multitude of negative experiences with Nexus phones, specifically, the complete lack of QA/QC Google maintained over that flagship product line. Dismiss this as an anecdote if you want, it's not, the Nexus 6P ended in a class action lawsuit, countless people had the same lousy experience I did. Android had me for nearly a decade. If you had told me at any point prior to October 2016 I'd end up an iPhone user, again, I'd have laughed in your face.

If the products still work for you, great, but don't discount the multitude of voices saying they're inferior to yesterday's products and deeply frustrating to use.

The funny thing is where they call this America's first true high-speed rail system, when it averages just 100 MPH, meanwhile parts of Acela express have been running 90 MPH for more than two decades, with peak speeds over 150 MPH. And over the course of this year, the equipment on that route is being replaced with new Avelia Liberty equipment that may actually make it average faster speeds than what Brightline is proposing.

To be pedantic, by 1985, Metroliner *barely* qualified as high-speed, because it could hit a maximum of 125 MPH, which is the absolute minimum for qualifying as high-speed rail. But in 1969, it was just 120 MPH, which isn't considered HSR.

The difference between Brightline and the California HSR is that the Brightline "high-speed" rail project involves only about 40 miles of new track, largely along an existing limited-access toll highway, with the remaining 195 miles using existing tracks, and as I understand it, exactly none of it is running at speeds that actually qualify for a high-speed rail designation (125 MPH for upgraded tracks, or 155 MPH for new tracks). In fact, it averages just 69 MPH, according to Wikipedia.

So sure, Brightline is a shining example of how to achieve "results", if by results, you mean spending as much money as California's high-speed rail system has spent so far, while only building 40 miles of track and setting up a new passenger train line that on average is within the margin of error of being the same speed as driving. If they get the speeds up, it might eventually be interesting, but right now, it just seems like a huge money pit to me.

At least California's HSR is designed for actual high speeds (max 220 MPH), rather than for half that speed, and when it eventually gets finished, will provide a very real benefit. And if Brightline had to deal with a decade of environmental reviews like the California HSR project did, they probably wouldn't have even bothered starting to build it. The delays in California have very little to do with government running the project and everything to do with other parts of the government getting in the way of the project.

3) It will undoubtedly be used to push ads nobody except the MBA asshats asked for.

That's really awful if the best they can achieve on a new track is 110 MPH. High speed rail *starts* at 125, so even that doesn't qualify as HSR. Many passenger rail projects built recently achieve roughly twice that speed. 110 MPH wasn't even state of the art in the 1960s. These days, that's a joke. Is there inadequate grade separation, or did they just cheap out on the trains?

Is it? It takes 3 hours and 23 minutes to do that trip by car. You're saying it makes that trip in 21 minutes? I don't think so.

Doing some quick math, the trains leave once an hour, so your average wait time should be roughly 30 minutes (assuming randomly distributed arrival times). Add that to the 2 hours and 45 minutes for the trip, and you save... Wow! You save EIGHT WHOLE MINUTES! That is TOTALLY worth $12 Billion! Oh, wait. Some of them take two hours and 50 minutes. So only three minutes saved. Maybe not such a good deal. [rolls eyes]

And to think some people don't think the California HSR makes sense. This gives new meaning to the phrase "corporate welfare".

The solution isn't to cut the long-distance routes. The solution is to fix them. Right now, those routes are pretty problematic, frequently running many hours behind because of freight trains delaying the Amtrak trains unreasonably. And the Zephyr ends up averaging just 55 MPH, which isn't really a great speed for traveling across the country, but that's not including the time spent at stops. With stops, it averages just 39 MPH, assuming it arrives on time. There are electric bicycles that can almost reach that speed (ignoring charging).

By the straightest route, I can get to my parents' house in 3 days of hard driving. By train, which doesn't go all that far out of the way, I can get there in... well, roughly three days. The difference is that by car, I would leave at 9 or 10 in the morning from my house, and on day 3, I'd arrive in the evening, whereas with Amtrak, I'd leave my house at more like 7 in the morning and arrive at... I think 3 in the morning on day 4.

In other words, the problem isn't that long-distance rail lines can't be viable in the U.S., but rather that running trains at two-thirds of 1950s train speeds can't be viable anywhere.

Compel the rail companies to comply with the law and give priority to passenger trains, run the trains closer to their maximum speed more often (which will probably require spending a lot of money on rail repairs), and reduce time spent at each station, and things will get a lot better. And of course, high-speed rail lines running at 150 MPH or faster would reduce travel time to a third what it takes on Amtrak, making it fairly competitive with air travel for most people, which would be a game-changer.

We have others that are considered high-speed rail, so this is NOT America's first.
But, like many others of Biden's wasted $, this is another project that should not be approved and hopefully, Trump (or next president since it will not be biden) will pull the $ from this. Why? Because this is by far the single best route to put in the world's first hyperloop. It is not just ppl that move from LA to LV. There is a ton of cargo that gets sent. Hyperloop needs to be done with cargo FIRST, and ran for 2-4 years before accepting it for manned travel. And having Cargo travel at 300-500 MPH between these, at costs cheaper than trucks, would be a big deal.

No it's not. You're not wrong about Instagram and other platforms but even the Gen Z'ers who think those platforms == the Internet still use Google. With the possible exception of Reddit (always a toxic place and now that it's public it seems highly probable they'll add 'enshittification' to the toxicity) what platform can you use to find recipes, instructions to repair a broken appliance, swap a part on your car, reviews on some product you're looking for, experiences people have had with credit cards, airlines, etc.?

Google is still highly relevant, for better or worse, and the erosion of their core product is so commonly known that it has been covered by the MSM. Google Search is objectively less useful than it ever has been. Google (err, Alphabet) as a company lost its way a long time ago, probably around the time "Don't be evil" was removed, and it has been run by the same MBA asshats that ruined everything for at least the last decade if not longer.

Yeah, because of the limited speeds involved, the only way high-speed rail travel makes sense is if it is Amtrak-style, where there's approximately zero security other than having police at major stations, with the occasional bomb-sniffing dog.

And that's a perfectly reasonable level of security, too. Trains aren't like airplanes, where if something goes wrong, police can't respond. Trains are on the ground, and if somebody starts something, someone will call 911, and police will meet the train within single-digit minutes at the nearest road crossing.

And trains also aren't like an airplane, where terrorists plausibly might try to smuggle a bomb onto an airplane to bring it down. There are far too many easier ways to attack a train, like sabotaging the rails or putting a bomb on a railroad bridge, and none of those require the attacker to blow him/herself up in the process or put him/herself at risk of getting caught carrying a bomb. So exactly nobody even remotely in his or her right mind would attack a train in that way (though I don't mind seeing the dogs just as a hedge against people who aren't even remotely in their right minds).

And trains also aren't like airplanes, where terrorists could take them over and crash them into a building. Trains pretty much only go where the rails go, and attempting to make them go somewhere else will not be particularly successful.

So there just isn't any rational reason for having any sort of security before boarding a train. All it does is cost travelers a whole lot of time, money, and convenience, all for approximately zero actual increase in public safety.

Weird. I've ridden Amtrak many times and have never experienced that. I do vaguely recall a point in the distant past where the TSA tried to muscle their way into doing random checks, and it caused so many problems that the Amtrak Police escorted them off of the premises. Maybe you were unlucky enough to have traveled on one of those days. :-)

Of course, it is connecting to an existing train station and, presumably, to the existing rail system. So assuming that there are some parallel tracks through certain stations or other sidings that they can use to pass the trains that already run on that track, nothing necessarily prevents them from running trains from Las Vegas all the way to LA Union Station at that point.

They have to phrase it that way. By naming an individual or company, it becomes a bill of attainder, at which point it becomes unconstitutional on its face (see Article I, Section 9). Of course, Congress, the Presidency (both parties), and SCOTUS seem to think that the Constitution is a piece of toilet paper these days...

I agree with you but don't underestimate DeBeers.

They have enough diamond reserves that they can steeply discount natural ones for long enough to put synthetic diamond makers out of business.

LK

For SX to set up a base on the moon and mars, they will need 2 different types of landers: Cargo and Manned.
With manned, it is easy enough for ppl and supplies to be transferred from space-only to the lander. The question becomes, what about the cargo version?
So far, SX has shown a door on the side, but I believe that there is NO WAY that is going to work. The reason is that the cargo will be pulled out and then have to be stacked directly below the door. In addition, assuming that lunar and martian cargo systems never return to earth surface, then we need a way to move cargo from the starship leaving earth to the lander, or possibly something in-between.
With that in mind, about the only system that I can imagine would be to use the nose opening, docking nose to nose, and then having containers, moved from 1 system to the other. Finally, when landed, the nose is opened up again, and a crane on the inside is used to pull the container out and place it on the side. What is interesting is that the crane could be attached to the rocket via a track that runs on the inside so that it can rotate around the lander and drop off containers directly to the ground as opposed to being forced to stack them.

Now, as to starship:
1) trivial for it to reach orbit. It was not because they are not working on orbiting, but on all of the stuff in-between such as take-off, separation, fuel pump testing, re-entry and landing on a single spot.
2) It is highly likely that SX will launch a couple of starlinks sats on this next launch. If not, it will almost certainly be the one after that. IOW, they will start using it for Cargo. 3) Re-fueling in orbit is not a big deal. They tested this in the last launch, internally. In addition, liquid transfers have been done for a long time (water, lox, fuel for ISS and other modules). They will need to build a tanker and a fuel-depot, but tanker will likely happen this year.
4) manned rating for launches will take a number of launches. Of course, that is exactly what SX intends to do with starlink cargos. Even if landings are not working yet, they will continue to use this to put up their starlinks that can not go on F9 ( though possible on FH ). The interesting item is how to test the life support. I suspect that they will be putting up 1 or more of these as space station module. Each 1 has more volume than the entire ISS (and far more than China's space station). Just by putting up the first one as a regular starship, they can sort things out for the ECLSS as well as layout, etc. Ideally, they would build several of these with later ones have multiple docking ports. That would enable these to quickly replace the ISS, while others continue to add their units to these for testing of their modules/ECLSS.

And yes, of this could be done before 2026.
Of course, that leaves the lunar lander. I would have to guess that once SX is able to land booster and starship on earth, they will have no issues landing on either the moon/mars. The only real issue will be (re-)entry into mars. The atmosphere is thin, but it is still there.