That article terribly disingenuous.

Our top 10 percent gets a bigger slice to start, but it also pays a much higher share of the tax

I love how the word "but" gets thrown in there. They pay more because they have a bigger slice! It's how progressive taxation works! There's no but. The one surprising result is Sweden. And the part about taxing regressively and putting the money toward the poor... well, it's good to see that we're defending that poor people are the middle class' problem and also that we're taking money from the poor, only to give it back later. Why not cut out the middle man?

So what you're saying is that not only do we need capitalism since it creates the optimal allocation of resources, because people are driven by their selfishness, but also we don't need government/social programs to help others, because people are driven by their altruism? Do you see a contradiction in that?

I doubt that's the case, becuase it's pretty rare to have an icon that scales down nicely. Most small icons aren't just scaled down versions of large icons. People actually remove features that would be too small to see or that would make the icon too cluttered at lower resolutions.

Greece is even better, because it doesn't even have anything to do with the country itself. It's just the name the Romans had for the region where it's at.

What are prepared statements?

Completely impossible only if you don't realise that:
a) the speed of light in a fiber optic cable is only about 2c / 3. In LEO it's pretty damn close to c.
b) you'll most likely actually have less routers and/or repeaters along the way.

That's... not how math works. 0.01 percent of 3200 is 0.32.

Actually, this is the main reason the Falcon 9 can't use chutes and the Electron can.

1. I'm pretty sure he meant polar orbits.

2. Israel launches classified satellites on retrograde orbits. There are a few others, too.

In combination with an oxidizer such as liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen yields the highest specific impulse, or efficiency in relation to the amount of propellant consumed, of any known rocket propellant. "

At the same time, it wastes a lot of that same efficiency by having such a low density that you need to make bigger fuel tanks and use bigger turbopumps for it, thus making your vehicle heavier.

Also, English isn't the only language in the world.

I don't see how NASA's role has changed at all. SpaceX does launch vehicles (and a capsule). NASA at most only specced out launch vehicles and/or capsules for other people to make. The things they did in-house have been:

• 1. dealing with astronauts, their training and mission assignment;
• 2. designing payloads and science experiments and assigning them to missions.

They're still doing those. If other companies have the launch vehicles covered and they don't even need to spec them, find a contractor, be on their arse so they actually deliver and wait a few years to actually have what they want, I don't see how that can ever be a loss.

Because integration testing is a thing and testing things individually does not guarantee they work together.

I find it amusing how a solution that works just fine the world over somehow can't possibly work in the US.