Given how new all these systems are, even if they actually do work, there is zero chance these claims have undergone the rigorous testing needed to support them.

"Right after we finish this next round of layoffs, we promise. "

The only completely true statement to be found here.

I think that deflation is overhyped. First of all, most of our economy is service based, and another huge portion is based on immediate needs - food, water, electricity, shelter. These things you generally purchase at whatever the price is now.

The portion of the economy that is driven by "durable goods" that are optional purchases that can be delayed is smaller. And then, prices are never the price. The true price is some vague number because there is always a sale just around the corner and only a small portion of consumers actually pay "the price". I'd wager that what we see as "prices" are much higher than actual prices, except in the case of necessities like food and energy - which, conveniently, are often excluded from inflation indexes ("excluding volatile food and every prices").

The you get to the whole capitalism ruse that "competition and productivity increases bring down prices" (they don't), which is somehow OK but deflation is bad? What they really mean is that you as a consumer should shut the fuck up and continue to consume. What should happen is everyone say "we aren't paying this much for a car, sorry" and then deflation will happen.

Economics as a pseudoscience is just an attempt to paper over the faults of capitalism with fancy terminology, and reverse-engineer desired outcomes. The "law" of supply and demand isn't a law, it's a justification for price increases where there is no other justification. Ask a 5-year-old what you should do if there are 5 apples and 10 people, and compare that to what an economist tells you. In which scenario will ten people be better off?

Elon Musk requires employees to work holidays and weekends.

If NASA blew up as many rockets as Elon did, we'd still be having hearings and investigations about it even today.

If NASA was given a budget and allowed to blow up rockets with the same goal as Elon, and not forced to rely on "private sector" for their equipment, they could get the costs down too. Rockets have just been a money giveaway that NASA was forced to do because "privatization good".

I've seen some people who claim to know what they are talking about say that the thermal emissivity scales by the fourth power, so the hotter you let your satellite run, it scales considerably. I have not seen an analysis by anyone I know. However, even if you can cool it, the cost and logistics of launching and maintaining said satellites far outweighs everything else.

SpaceX is just a "let's bet on Elon again!!!", except instead of being Tesla of 20 years ago, it's priced like Tesla of today.

Starlink as some kind of global internet service is a joke. It's only "good" if you have no other options. Any cable or fiber service is far better and cheaper, for both the end user and the provider. Can you imagine fighting all your neighbors for bandwidth to whatever satellite happens to be overhead? And, of course, what goes up must come down, so they need just as much downlink capacity as uplink.

It's just not something that can scale. Frankly, nothing SpaceX does scales. It's a rocket company, and if you subtract out Starlink launches, the number of yearly launches is flat or down since the 1960s. There just is no demand. Elon is creating fake demand by building SpaceX with Tesla money.

The people who incessantly repeat "there is no place for political violence in America" seem to forget that the country's fight for independence began with acts of political violence.

Yeah I thought that you were basically "guaranteed" electrical service if you were connected. There are places in the middle of nowhere who have electricity that would never have been installed if the utilities were not forced to. I wonder what convoluted regulations made this possible.

I think you mean that half of people are average intelligece or below. Because that's how averages work. Or are you also a member of that group?

Like everyone who replied to this, you don't ride bikes, and you don't know what you are talking about. My bike "needs a speedo"? And I'm not honest? Truly making me laugh out loud bro. I ride 500-600kms a week, every week, and have for a decade. Don't tell me I don't know how fast you can freewheel down a hill.

You don't know what you're talking about. Also, my downhill speed record is about 96 km/h.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Just last week: Saturday - 80 miles in 4 hours, aka 32 km/h. Sunday, 75 miles, same average. M-F, 40-50 miles a day, sometimes averaging > 21mph for the whole ride, and > 25mph for ~25 miles of that ride (the goal is to do that section in under an hour).

I ride bikes, you don't, you should probably just shut the fuck up.

YouTube has ads?

A ton of videos have big, colored, hard-coded subtitles, especially for voice-overs. Those are incredibly distracting and the absolute worst. At least you can turn these off.