I mean, who's SpaceX's biggest customer? The US Government.
They are the world's cheapest launch service provider and that is without re-usability. They will likely become the dominant launch provider in the world. If they get re-usability to work economically, this will enable mass launches of inexpensive satellites, which could change the entire communications industry. Musk doesn't think small.
I suppose its not a bad thing to have just in case but I don't see the reasoning behind the fixation on it as a design requirement and their ranting about its "importance" in press releases. In almost 300 manned space launches a Launch Escape system has only been of verifiable use in a single incident(Soyuz T-10-1).
The same rockets used for the launch escape will also be used as a propulsive landing system that can land like a helicopter.
jesus fucking christ, do they not teach reading comprehension any more?
He quoted from the relevant sections, which demonstrates reading comprehension
and I would have taken an 85% pay cut for the privilege
Exactly. There's a lot of people willing to make huge compromises in order to become scientists. Just like you.
One of the things I find interesting about this debate is the huge level of cognitive dissonance in scientists (practicing and would-be) concerning their foundation myths. But in practice, outside interests are a huge bias that needs to be corrected for.
If your economy is in recession, cutting jobs will make the recession worse.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm just not on board with the idea of protecting workers when that causes a lot of long term harm to societies.
Bitcoin miners are performing work, specifically, they are validating transactions. If they were doing something else instead the blockchain wouldn't be guaranteed to be valid and bitcoin could be counterfeited.
You aren't arguing what you think you're arguing. There's no reason that performing work means that the work can't be useful in its own right.
Companies like SolarCity basically install solar systems for no money up front, and then lease them back to you for a period. For many houses, even with these fees, the SolarCity systems will save the homeowner quite a bit of money. Licenses to sell power back to the grid are usually restricted, even in states they are allowed. If you have a battery system installed, you will no longer have to sell your excess solar energy back to the grid. You'll simply be able to store it in your battery for later use. Thus, homeowners with these systems may not have to apply for licenses for their solar systems, since they will not be doing net-metering. This will allow many users to install solar panels who couldn't before. It removes the ability for utilities and/or state governments to restrict the number of homes with solar panels. This is why these batteries will likely have a huge impact.
The way I see Free Market Capitalism is this: When have you ever had a difficult problem that got better by leaving it the fsck alone?
I think this is the core question. The answer is that these problems happen all the time. For example, there's a large category of perceived problems which aren't actual problems. For example, your claim that power companies don't "add value" when in the next sentence you state exactly the value they provide - power that _everyone_ wants. Since they are actually adding considerable value, the difficult problem of the valueless power companies is easily adverted by not having existed in the first place.
Second, there are the very difficult problems that aren't your problems. I find letting people work their difficult problems out on their own is the best solution here. Among other things, it's an educational experience that allows people to solve other difficult problems they face over the course of their lives.
`Then there's the difficult problem that one makes works by messing with it. For example:
Socialists basically say: Hey, the world is _fsckin'_ complex and it takes real hard work to make things run smoothly, and then a Socialist will start blathering on about all the things you need to do to make a system work.
In other words, the Socialist takes their one tool in the box and whacks on the problem happily. Then when the problem results in more problems (such as your DMV example where the supposed "anti-gov't types" fail to behave according to script), there's more targets to whack on. The top-down strategy common to socialism results in all sorts of problems due to both the ignorance and venality of the policy makers as well as the crude nature of the tools.
There is a standard destructive spiral that socialism gets in. First, they create a public good. Then when the rest of the world behaves in a way as to overconsume the public good, the standard tragedy of the commons phenomenon, then a bureaucracy is set up to regulate the consumption of the public good and starts doing its own thing. Then the cycle repeats, this time with a sliver of the society trapped in this bit of waste. This is exactly a place where relatively free markets excel.
Finally, there is the continued contradiction of growing an ever more complex, opaque, powerful, and unaccountable government while saying "Sure, you have to keep an eye on things". No, you aren't keeping an eye on things. You are growing one of the largest problems of societies, known since we first had civilizations. You don't have to "keep an eye" on markets like you do on bureaucracies, whether government-based or otherwise, who have little stake in doing their job.
He calls himself a socialist, but most self-avowed socialist wouldn't consider him one because he doesn't favor compulsory worker ownership, production for use, or any of the usual socialist agenda.
Don't confuse private opinion with public stance. Most of those self-avowed socialists don't hold an elected position in a moderately conservative electorate.
Still pretty scary that a simple counter like that can cause a chain of events that chucks off the power completely. How can this be possible?
Yeah. Imagine if it happened on final approach.
I remember supporting an office with win95 and Access. I had tech support conversations that almost went like this:
Him: My computer just crashed.
Me: So what did you do then?
Him: I rebooted it.
Me: Well there's your problem. Reboot the computer again. Then tap the computer gently and pray to the god of your choice and reboot a third time...