Only I didn't defend your bro. Though now that I think of it, you and him would have agreed with each other about Palestine and Peta too.

I know, right? You and him would have gotten along famously.

Nope, that's all you. The only thing I'll give him is that he was very charismatic. He couldn't have gotten where he did if he wasn't. For everything else, he pretty much always did the wrong thing. And I'm not only talking about morality, rather he kept making the absolute wrong strategic decisions. Declaring war on Russia? Stupid. Throwing away an entire brigade in Stalingrad? Really stupid. Joining a war against America? Fatal mistake.

There's practically nothing I have in common with him. But you on the other hand, you'd have loved listening to his rants against capitalism. He also loved putting swastikas on things he hated, just like you.

It's a good thing that none of what you said applies to me. I can say, with complete certainty, that your stance on it doesn't come from anything rational. You're really just as delusional as the "Muskrats" you're referring to. The "side" you're on holds no relevance. Any time Elon succeeds at anything, at all, your brain responds much the same as if you were physically slapped in the face. That's exactly why you feel so threatened by him, that's why he seems to dangerous to you, and it's all because of your ego.

Let that sink in.

Yes, they did. It blew up about five minutes afterwards, but still landed in one piece, which is pretty good considering it was the first attempt, and the second starship flight overall, making it well within the prototyping period of its development.

They weren't just wrong about consumption/demand. I've said before that the peak oil wikipedia article has been one of the more amusing ones to follow for a while:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Figure 1: What we propagandized to you for decades and hoped to influence public policy with.
Figure 2: How pants-shittingly wrong we were.

The attitude at spacex isn't what most people (both naysayers and supporters) usually think. Engineers generally like seeing other engineers succeed, especially with something as hard as space.

The only thing he's dangerous to is your ego, if we're being honest.

Same with starship.

And you base this on...?

How many rockets can you list that haven't had multiple iterations in the design before even making it to prototype? Falcon 9 certainly did. The merlin engine certainly did. Your username is quite appropriate, by the way.

Nobody tried to build starship out of carbon fiber. See if you can figure out what that means. I'll give you a few years.

Also, you likely have it in your head that subs can't be built out of carbon fiber and actually work well, and you, just like James Cameron, are quite wrong on this. It's actually been done, successfully, many times, well before oceangate even existed, not only by the US navy, but by the private sector as well.

https://www.designnews.com/ind...

The fact that it was carbon fiber isn't even why the Titan ultimately imploded. Many things lead up to that, but if you actually look at the way that it imploded, the carbon fiber hull didn't initially buckle, and that was despite how very poorly they built it. The most likely cause was the mismatch of the modulus between the titanium cap and the carbon fiber hull, which eventually caused them to separate. That was made worse by the fact that they allowed it to freeze, and they never properly transported it, even opting to lift it in ways that would cause unnecessary stress to the caps. This is all evidenced by the fact that the glue holding the caps and the hull together appears to have separated cleanly in many spots. Even further evidenced by the fact that the outer wall of the titanium channel sheared right off. Everything that happened afterwards, including the hull shattering, was a domino effect resulting from that.

The problem with oceangate wasn't their choice of materials. The problem with oceangate is that their mindset is remarkably similar to yours: They felt it was a good idea to go to production with the first iteration of their design, and without doing any destructive testing to even determine what the limits are.

It's worth mentioning, by the way, that every starship flight thus far has pushed the vehicle well beyond its intended limits, and in more ways than one. For example, you might have noticed that every launch has been missing some tiles -- this is, in fact, deliberate. As you've already demonstrated that you're not aware, it's a good idea to design, test, and iterate, changing things where appropriate.

No, that wasn't at all why the shuttle was expensive. There are a lot of reasons for that, mainly surrounding the sheer complexity of it and that it wasn't as reusable as NASA thought it would be. As you're no doubt not aware, heat tiles themselves aren't all that expensive. Well...except in the case of the space shuttle, where each one was made to order, as many (most?) had to be placed in a particular position. Starship doesn't have that problem, and even better, they're all made in-house. That latter bit is a huge reason why SpaceX can bring the cost down as much as it does -- most of the cost around rocketry is because there are very few players in the industry who actually make any parts, and they charge an arm and a leg for basically everything, precisely because the industry has had a long history of using cost plus contracts, where the government foots the bill of everything, and the manufacturer is guaranteed at least so much profit, no matter how expensive their suppliers are.

SpaceX, on the other hand, has never used a cost plus contract. Not even once. Elon's mindset is very much that of "That costs how much? screw that, let's make it ourselves for a fraction of that cost." And you know what? Not only does it work, it's also proven. This was literally the same thing that was done with falcon 9, by the way.

They've already done that.

I'm going to take the unpopular opinion that there is merit to this idea. After that all went down, he went on to found Brave, which now has a larger share of users than Firefox. It would be nice to have fewer chromium browsers. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the users who dropped firefox over that nothingburger have already forgotten about the whole thing and now use some chromium fork, if not even Brave itself.

Either way, cable never promised to be ad free. So many people say they "remember" that, but somehow they can't actually name what channels they actually watched that were ad free. At the time of Nickelodeon, it was so unpopular that they eventually had to reinvent the channel. That included changing their logo from the dude bending over, looking into a literal nickelodeon, a thing that had long since left the public consciousness even in those days, replacing it with the orange splat, which is also when it began having advertisements. The Mandela effect is so named because a lot of people had vibrant memories of Nelson Mandela dying in a prison during the 80s, complete with memories of a funeral being broadcast. Except the whole part where...it didn't fucking happen.

https://www.verywellmind.com/w...

What they "landed" was not orbital class. Not even close. The highest it ever went was two miles, with the rest of the flights being less than half of that. That is even less remarkable than the lunar lander during the Apollo program.

Except they weren't actually reusable, they had to be completely re-manufactured, with basically no cost savings to speak of.

Precisely, and they never accomplished that in any meaningful way. It's worth mentioning that parachutes are not exactly soft landings. If you ever go skydiving, and the chute deploys correctly, you still hit the ground like a sack of potatoes, and light injuries are not uncommon. This is really the way it has to be done as well. Not only is there a pretty good impact when boosters hit the ocean, thus compromising the structure, but you also dunked the entire thing in salt water. Unlike a capsule, which is not only lighter and a more round shape (thus able to tolerate stress better) it's quite porous, and there isn't anything you can do about that. Everything you're talking about, by the way, was before NASA wrote the report I'm speaking of poo-pooing it.

Hmm...how hilarious it would be if slashdot had any idea...

Why, yes. Haven't you?

https://youtu.be/xc1SzgGhMKc&t... Apollo 11
https://youtu.be/kFSa6vUix70&t... Apollo 12
https://youtu.be/oZZe-xXx9_o&t... Apollo 14
https://youtu.be/AxqKlDsgMzc&t... Apollo 15
https://youtu.be/JSXhb3J05ps&t... Apollo 16
https://youtu.be/A7y5feeMvEo&t... Apollo 17

All 6 moon landings that have ever happened. Just to be sure, I linked directly to the time of the moments that should be the most triggering. Enjoy!

Barely. Shit, 3 hours is enough time to get a lot done, never mind 72. They don't even need to actually be in Russia for the duration, and that's without even relying on fault injection to extract any keys from the SIM. Close enough should suffice, and that doesn't necessarily depend on your physical location. Though...Russia should probably ban e-sim. If they don't, this whole thing is basically pointless. And if they do, Ivan with his Adidas track suit and apple watch will be sorely disappointed.

The more inconveniences Putler's supporters have to put up with, the better. Make them feel it.