SpaceX has a structural advantage that NASA can't ever match: they're allowed to fail. How many rockets have they blown up, etc?

Imagine all the congressional investigations, firings, political backlash if NASA did the same! NASA can't run, has to walk very carefully to make sure it doesn't stumble.

Ain't it funny how things never really change? The advertising revenue game is an oldy but goody that just inevitably keeps coming back: the entire WWW, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Slashdot...

Advertising will inevitably a major income line item once OpenAI opens it up. The thing about multi-$billion line items is that they get a lot of scrutiny. If OpenAI tries some cute "be nice to the user" policy that fails to absolutely maximize profit, Brinkman will be told in no uncertain terms to fix that **fast** if he wants to keep his job.

He might want to fight that but, he's not a known marketing genius who can make long-term strategic marketing arguments stick. If there's anything he's learned in the last few years, it's to pick his battles carefully. And when you're making $T commitments, well...

Leaks are the least of the bad things that pointers can do, e.g. reusing deleted memory, exceeding bounds, flat-out corrupt memory access, etc. _CrtDumpMemoryLeaks is useful but very limited. Address sanitizers are an improvement, but right I'm working on what's clearly a memory access problem and yet the address sanitizer is happy.

Seems to me that DNG and RAW are separate issues: RAW is a bunch of good 'ol bare-metal, hardware-dependent formats. I'd hate to let Adobe dictate how my hardware works. That said, there's nothing stopping cameras from emitting DNGs as a secondary derived format same way they emit JPGs.

"commuting -- but so what?"
Dimon and senior leadership could show some actual leadership by example: start making a 2x/day 1-hour+ everyday commute himself -- and not by helicopter, limo, apartment in town, other unaffordable means.

I understand his time is super-valuable, but a above all a CEO's first job is leadership. That is why they pay you the big bucks, Jamie. Leadership by example well might be worthy of your time and effort. 'Coz if commuting's not worth your while...
Something for other hard-ass CEOs to consider too.

...are bits that you cut & paste. Even if you think you "carefully reviewed" it, it's many times more bug-prone than fresh, real code. I've been a freak about reviewing code ever since I worked on life-critical systems, but have to admit it's just too easy to get misled down the garden path by pasted-in code.

"SpaceX’s Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket – collectively referred to as Starship – represent a fully reusable transportation system" https://www.spacex.com/vehicle...

This I wanna see! Maybe a simultaneous landing for show?

Let's say you're an advertiser and your ads are twice as responsive due to surveillance targeting, but they cost 2-3x more each than untargeted ones? The only people who ultimately benefit are the advertising networks because they can make more money from the same number of ads. There is, after all, a limit to how many ads consumers will put up with.

John Wanamaker once said, “I am convinced that about one-half the money I spend for advertising is wasted, but I have never been able to decide which half.” Targeted advertising seemed to be solution BUT the dream ultimately evaporated because the bid-for-placement system ended up multiplying the cost of each ad impression as it becomes more effective.

That's baked into the system because business will always spend every dollar that it can profitably afford on advertising to gain customers. Say customers are worth $150 average profit to you: you'll naturally pay up to $100+ to get them. The total number of ads shown is irrelevant -- all that matters is the cost per customer acquisition. For an advertiser, bidding $100 to show a 100% effective ad is the same as bidding $10 for 10% effective, or $0.10 for a 0.1% effective ad. Google or Meta's math is the opposite: they'd rather show less ad impressions to make the same $, thus freeing up "inventory" they can sell to someone else.

As to the alleged benefit to consumers that they see more-relevant ads, I can only say that I find it's actually easier to ignore an impertinent ad.

In the Crunchy Frog skit when health inspector is told that a chocolate company's bon bon contains lark's vomit:

Health Inspector: I think it would be more appropriate if the box bore a large red label: warning lark's vomit.

Chocolate Company: But our sales would plummet!

The item itself may not be illegal, but the *use* in question certainly is. Let's say a car manufacturer advertised a reinforced bumper (quite legal) that was "great for clearing out the slowpokes ahead of you" (probably not so much so).

Funny how many companies think they "own" their customers and take liberties accordingly.

Fast forward a few years and it'll be required on all sites after some inevitable digital 9/11. "...and why not show your ID? You say you're just checking stock prices? Well, that might be just the clue authorities need to track down human trafficking or child porn or terrorism. Or insider trading. Honest people have nothing to hide. The ID makes everything totally convenient and secure for both your and the authorities."

Social networks? Try again: EVERYTHING! Between butt-covering lawyers, marketers and organizational data-squirreling instincts, getting your ID will be the default for any site.

Goodbye anonymity.

My line in the sand: if I learn a lot from coding something, do it over! That's whether it's blue-sky or significantly modifying something existing. Refactoring is great and all, but that's not how you want to start a project.