As opposed to your anecdote of zero (you are obviously lying).

I live in a country in which 96% of the population would be considered "nutbar" anti gun extremists in the US and I've literally never heard anyone say such a thing. Ever.

What happens is this. Someone makes a product with a 0.1% reliability.

This is a fallacy.

What happens is it'll be incredibly obvious in tests (which you can afford to do with cheap missiles) if the reliability rate is that low. Why would it be?

Everything about it screams these are a new cheap, almost worthless missile. Particularly the use of the word 'hypersonic' to describe a missile that the US would never call hypersonic (we reserve that word for advanced, hard to hit hypersonic cruise missiles, not hypersonic ballistic missiles that are easy to destroy)

Quantity has a quality all of its own.

Never mind that hypersonic is not a military term, but an aerodynamic regime. You (or pretentiously "we") don't get to reserve that word.

Mass manufacture of cheap propeller cruise missiles is enough to overwhelm the production capacity of expensive interceptor missiles. And hypersonic ballistic missiles aren't easy to intercept, they are possible to intercept. But, much harder than low speed missiles, so you need fewer to overwhelm the stocks of interceptors.

Plus they hired a military contractor to waste money making stupid ugly delivery vans that are way way behind schedule

Those vehicles are everything the administration hates: they're much safer for vulnerable road users, e.g. pedestrians and cyclists and much more accessible than trucks, with low floor, easy entry and so on.

It irks many of the anti-gun people greatly that shooting is part of several Olympic sports.

I live in a country with strict gun control that a large of the population support, and I've literally never heard anyone say such a thing.

let me disappoint you, that was one of the dumbest pieces of crap that one could watch that year.

To counter from the authority of the dude: that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Given that the Roberts Court is one of the most corporate-friendly in history, this decision comes as something of a surprise.

Nonetheless, it appears to be largely concordant with the so-called "Betamax case" from the early 1980's which established the principle of significant non-infringing uses as a defense and, despite passage of the DMCA, still largely informs the contours of contributory infringement.

This is a lot of cope. Sorry - there's nothing historically or linguistically accurate about that paper. It uses liberal misinterpretation of the word 'regulated' to infer government control, and grossly over-extends how militias have been regulated and mustered for the 300 odd years prior to the Constitution, and for 150 odd years after. It's doublespeak, a reinterpretation and recast of original intent and meaning.

My guy... have you been on youtube lately?

Ignoring for a moment that militias were actively prosecuted and pushed underground during the 80s/90s/00s, "guntube" quite clearly shows that there are organized and well equipped (how we say 'regulated' in today's parlance) militias out there still. They're just not registered 501c3 organizations. When the founders wrote the US Constitution, "militia" was every able bodied male who could muster arms. This is well established historically from the English tradition.

It isn't that we think gun-lovers are going to go ape-shit and shoot everyone around them, it is that a proportion of gun-lovers will do this. Which ones? Why you just have to ask them.

Why don't you do that, then? And look at the shooting death and mass shooting statistics and demographics, while you're at it. It isn't the people you're concerned that it will be, at all.

First they came for the amoral megacorporations run by lizard people!

Are you claiming that Zuck is a person (even if of the lizard variety)? I do not buy it.

You know of any "civilian grade" materials that won't burn up at hypersonic speeds?

Yes.

There's nothing magical about military grade stuff. The military is usually less buget constrained but not across the board.

There are "civillian grade" (whatever the fuck that means) cutting tools than can now hog out inconel while glowing orange continuously.

Also, you can you know just like buy a graphite crucible on ebay for cheap. Graphite sublimes at 3650 degrees C, which is higher than Tungsten's melting point of 3422 degrees.

I'm sure these will work reliably. Why didn't lockheed martin think of that?

Well, die-casting isn't really simpler. I mean sure you can die cast pot metal at low precision cheaply. Modern die castings which are large and complex use very expensive moulds, of the sort China is now well set up to produce, what with the manufacturing base. If Lockheed-Martin is selling them for 10 million a missile, they don't have the volume for die casting.

And what's the incentive for them to reduce the price?

I'm sure these will work reliably. Why didn't lockheed martin think of that?

If they are really that cheap, then even if the reliability is a risible 10%, they're still much cheaper.

You may wish to consider how far it is from Costa Rica to the US, and what is in between.

Or not!

except that up until now I have just been trying to get through to you what 'productiom' means.

No, you haven't. You smugly asked a rhetorical question about transport only it turns out that pineapples come by sea. Not only is that completely irrelevant for road EV transport but the big container ship companies are working on electric cargo ships and ranges are approaching the Costa Rica-USA routes.

So naturally you switched gears to a completely new question without even acknowledging the answer.

And that's because you are working from the position that EV's are not viable and attempting to prove that they aren't by asking pointed questions. Except EVs are way more viable in way more places than you realise so your questions are all off base.

Not one comment has had anything to do with production but rather distribution.

This doesn't even makes sense.

And yeah, before Amazon there weren't all kinds of trucks driving to deliver a box with a fishhook in it so any EVs they use on that side are just preventing them from adding more pollution.

Amazon didn't invent the idea of deliveries. We used to call it "mail order", remember? Some people took faxes. Some people even took orders over X.25 networking (in France, for example). Amazon grocery delivery has also been wildly unsuccessful in the UK for example where the major grocery delivery players were already established online before Amazon branched out from selling books.

But again this is just whataboutism. You are trying to claim EV's aren't viable. Changing delivery patterns because of the internet isn't some sort of checkmate.

Aw shit, Bill Gates got his 5G vaccine chips from China?