Indeed. That's one of the few things that one can say has nothing to do with either the original Hyperloop alpha concept or the new college competition entries. Pneumatic tubes mean that they make use of pressure to push things - that's what the word "pneumatic" means. Pressure being the one thing Hyperloop (all permutations) distinctly lacks.
The lecture didn't cover anything newer than Hawking Radiation. Where's the discussion over the Firewall Paradox?
Anyway, my preferred hypothesis: singularities don't exist, crossable event horizons don't exist, there is no disjoint region of spacetime beyond them, there is no unusual quantum behavior, localized inflation maintains a continuous spacetime metric at black holes by deforming infalling partial motions to a tangential path, matter/energy that falls into a black hole is as thoroughly fried and scrambled as they would be falling into such an extreme environment even if spacetime deformation weren't an issue, but the result is nearly frozen in time, released as the black hole explodes in an inflationary blast - and the Big Bang was a colossal such event.
Seriously. I was a big fan of Hyperloop Alpha. But the MIT team that won the "Hyperloop" contest is proposing something nothing like Hyperloop. The test track that SpaceX is building is designed to support a wide range of vehicles, most nothing like that in the Hyperloop Alpha document. So if I say "I like hyperloop", I don't know what exactly it is I'm supporting anymore. What exactly is "Hyperloop" these days?
All I can say is that I really liked the alpha one. The MIT team's maglev thing is Meh^2.
If you're dedicated enough to climb onto a well elevated tube, cut a hole large enough to pour concrete in through inch-thick steel - after sabotaging all of the pressure sensors tbrough the whole length of the tube and feeding them false data - and then using a concrete pump with a very tall boom fill in the tube with concrete, in order to kill people.... then why not just fly planes into skyscrapers like most people? I mean, if you're going to go through that much work.
Yes, the SSD does have a separate tracking algorithm to manage dynamic LBA mapping to cells for wear-leveling. And yes, and abrupt power outage can corrupt and brick the drive. The OCZ Vertex series have a history of this happening where it can't decrypt (internal) and mount the value due to said corruption. Newer SSDs such as the prosumer and enterprise variety include extra capacitance to ensure half-writes don't occur and thus recover from both a firmware and OS journaling file system error.
Some swapping of live data occurs, but having extra slack free space to move around in helps the algorithm better work within those constraints. In fact, Samsung provides a utility called Magician to manage Over Provisioning for extended life. It's not required, but ostensibly it does help.
Since you have experience... I've often had interest in physical computing, but have never gotten around to learning / messing around with it. What would you find to be a good "introductory" system (for someone with lots of programming experience but only grade-school/100-in-1-electronics-kit/basic soldering/etc level electronics experience) for the purposes of, say, controlling steppers, variable-RPM drive motors, taking voltage readings, etc?
Of course they're taking business from other players - but that's not the question. The question is if they're making new business that otherwise wouldn't be there. Thusfar, I haven't seen anything to suggest that.
But, the potential is there in the future if they can keep bringing down costs, as they're hoping.
And IMHO, we're not even remotely near the point where space junk is going to stop us from launching things into space. Not even close. Particularly in LEO where orbits decay relatively quickly. It's always a threat, a threat that rises with the launch rate, but as far as being prohibitive... no. And there's some good evidence that things are moving in a positive direction - increasingly, nations are passing laws mandating that satellites be moved to disposal or graveyard orbits at the end of their service life, rather than just leaving them out there as potential collision/debris generation hazards.
Complexity. Money. Risk of inadvertent rocket damage.
Best just to learn to land the rockets right.
I wouldn't expect a huge shift in the size of the global launch market at current Falcon 9 pricing. Now, with reusable Falcon 9s, or multiple payloads from Falcon Heavies at current quoted launch prices, that could be a different story...
Not seeing the connection. Somebody's going to be launching satellites either way, whether it's SpaceX or a competitor.
Also, don't confuse cores with launches. The Falcon Heavy is three cores. Of course, offsetting that, there's the potential for reuse of rockets...
If they keep giving us crash videos, someone's going to have to make a compilation video set to the song "Yakity Sax"
Seriously though, they've made clear progress every time. So there's good reason to be hopeful here.
In short, you can pay Adblock not to see the ads, or pay a website micro-transaction (few cents to a dollar a year??) to the site directly not to see the ads. Things that makes you go "hmmmmm".
Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda