If you didn't try to steal copper, your brain wouldn't be fried and there'd have been one less power outage.

...You're sitting here comparing an Iroquois village with a larger landmass and a tenth of the population to a country, and then being aghast at the difference in scale. Besides, since when does your igloo need electricity?

That is not a loan.

As someone who lives in Los Angeles, I've witnessed exactly this. What's really stupid is you guys think this is just a conservative thing. I've seen this happen in both tech and film (which I don't work in, but I've gotten to know several people who do.) In the film industry, most of that centers around the regulatory regime, a lot of it FilmLA related. What a conservative bunch those filmmakers are, amirite? And that Gavin Newsom warning about this...such a conservative.

One thing you very likely do not realize is how and when economic activity makes geographic shifts. You're living under this strange assumption that California has always been and will always be what it is. Just like Detroit.

I feel like talking to you guys about this subject is like talking to Russians about their special needs military operation. Like them, you only hear what you want to hear. A month ago, I made a post asking them how they're dealing with the fuel rations in Moscow and St Petersburg, they mocked and laughed at me saying there are none. These guys hadn't seen it in their particular neighborhood so they dismissed it as propaganda. Two weeks later, good luck finding any fuel, even in their neighborhoods. Like you, if they don't personally witness it, then it's not happening.

Right now we're very early stage into this. The first thing that needs to happen for a large shift like this infrastructure capex needs to be invested. That's already done. Next is the infrastructure to accommodate it needs to be built. That's what is currently happening.

TPM is one of the most useless tools towards that end. Get a DMA card and find out why. For security -- especially for somebody in my position -- it's incredibly useful. There's no conspiracy to deprive you of your copy of "love, actually" or "mean girls", so you can relax, your bootlegged chick flick collection is safe from TPM. Believe me, I have several terabytes of bootlegged sci-fi movies on my Plex server, and I'm not in the slightest concerned about TCG coming after that

Actually the concern was SGX, which is now gone, and that would have impacted a lot more than just your copy of 50 shades of grey -- it was actually a security nightmare pretending to be your friend. TPM is completely open. SGX was exactly the opposite.

I didn't say that.

More than once, too.

Telecom experts were saying there's no way you'd be able to bring down the cost of phased array antennas to a reasonable level. Nobody at SpaceX was certain of that either. Then it happened anyway.

https://www.businessinsider.co...

Enjoy some nice fodder from gizmodo about heavy lift rockets being scalable:

https://gizmodo.com/bad-news-f...

Many others as well, like stainless steel instead of carbon fiber, the booster catch, the sheer scale of starlink, supercooled fueling, space lasers, hot staging (without sacrificing the booster), and full-flow staged combustion (which many had tried and failed.) And those are just the ones I can tell you about. There have been failures too, for example the attempt at landing dragon with thrust instead of parachutes.

Then you're just trying to be contrarian.

Nobody said otherwise, however, I don't believe you understand the significance of starlink's orbital parameters with regard to safety. You think you do, but you don't.

Did you even pay attention to what I said? I asked how the GP believes there's fraud going on. Who is defrauding whom? Either you've come here just to be contrarian, or you've come to ask about your genital warts. I don't know which, but if there's a point to any of this, I've yet to hear it.

Who was on his "back" exactly?

And they start with an argument, predicated on a legal theory. I don't see anything resembling either of those. That's exactly what I was asking GP for.

And what's your point? There's uncertainty in business? You're just now figuring this out?

And the data says...

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

False.

This is just something socialists say, and often, because they need naive followers to buy into their crap to obtain any measure of power, but it has no basis in reality. Unless you live in Canada, Europe (except Belgium), or Russia (which would make a lot of sense in your case) but you're using US pricing, which suggests US context.

Even after you adjust for housing, food, health care, taxes, and other mandatory expenses as suggested by rsilvertard, people are still bringing in more.

https://www.macrotrends.net/30...

The disconnect you're having is I operate based on empiricism, in other words, what can be observed and measured, where you're already known to manufacture and/or spread disinformation.

Bringing the cost down is also an engineering problem. NASA and the ESA both said reusable rockets weren't economical even though they already knew it was possible. The ESA even famously poo-poo'd the idea, exactly like you guys are doing here. I personally don't know whether this will work. If somebody -- anybody -- has an idea for how they can make it work, then unlike you and apparently most others on slashdot, I'm not going to try to stop it, nor do I see any good reason for that.

Besides, I'm not seeing the argument for fraud, which is what GP asserted, and is what I responded to. If you disagree, then who is defrauding whom? Perusing an idea that ultimately doesn't work isn't fraud, it's just business. Most ideas don't work, which is why so many businesses fail. That's why investing carries risk.

I didn't cherry-pick anything. You tried to make the consumption sound like a bigger deal than it really is.

Let's see your math then -- show us how much more carbon you save by keeping them on the ground. You're the one making the assertion on this, so put up or shut up. What you're doing here, by the way -- that's handwaving.

I already made it abundantly clear that it's not. Regardless, the concept has already been proven.

https://www.pnnl.gov/news-medi...

Perhaps to fuel a rocket. Gee, ya think?

Actually, normal human tongues are red. The reason yours is that brownish color is because you eat a lot of ass.

I just told you, dingleberry, it's being funded by Starlink.

I didn't give any whataboutism. Putting your numbers into broader perspective isn't whataboutism, it's used purely to indicate how meaningless your argument is just by the sheer scale of it. You literally complained about the entire aggregate carbon output for the entire lifetime of this project, which pales in comparison to just one day of global methane use.

Since you're splitting hairs over trivial amounts of carbon, why not off yourself? Less carbon is less carbon.

I did make it abundantly clear that it's not a thing yet. How much more clear do you need it?

Umm...ok? If you're so certain about that, go short SpaceX and Tesla.

Stop trying to sound intellectual, you're so bad at it. I didn't handwave anything -- I literally told you that I don't know why it didn't work, and in a previous post I already told you that I have no idea if this concept will work at all. Handwaving is doing exactly the opposite, which you'd know if you weren't dumb as a rock.

At some point, the only people who subscribe to cable (or satellite) will only be those who flat out aren't interested in having an internet connection along with it. Either way, cable is for old people.

Non-sequitor. GP was specifically talking about going beyond LEO with a two stage rocket and at a low cost. So you came in and put the cart before the horse.

Actually I take back a prior comment I stated about you -- I doubt you understand any engineering at all. If you had, you'd be capable of mentally compartmentalizing problems into their respective domains.

As for why it didn't work in this particular case, I have no idea. I imagine they did the math and determined that it would work, but it obviously didn't. That's why you gather telemetry and iterate on your design. As far as I know, this was their first attempt.

Somewhere in that void you call a head, you concluded that if at first you don't succeed, then it's obviously impossible. This is probably why you never made it anywhere in life, and rather than fixing yourself, you sit here and complain about those who did.

And when did either of these places take away a yacht?

By the way, do you know why Francois Hollande end up lobbying against his own tax hike that was a key part of his campaign platform and promise?

Regardless, if you think the grass is greener, feel free to move there. I tell everybody this -- it doesn't matter where you live -- if you're unhappy there, then why would you stay?

If you already are in your preferred place, then...what are you complaining about?

You guys keep saying that it will work with democracy, but we've already observed exactly how that pans out: After the masses start to realize that this isn't such a hot idea after all, they vote you out. What happens from there depends.

In the case of Croatia, you guys just overthrow democracy under the reasoning (as argued by Karl Marx) this is all inevitable anyways, and you may as well get the red tape out of the way of progress.

In the case of Hungary, the tankies roll in from across the border, and those who still live under democracy and benefit from it cheer them on because they haven't yet had to live under the system they so desire.

The fact is, collectivism, in all of its forms, is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. Collectivism is about surviving. Individualism is about thriving. A case can be made for the former in times of war or famine where the main objective of the day is to live another day. But outside of that, it's not living.

You'll find nothing of value in his head, nor anything to drink. Your brain is the only one made of brown matter.