No you don't. The seller gets to determine what the product is or isn't. You get to choose whether to buy it or not.

Why would I need to? That's not the determining factor. The determining factor is whether Anthropic wants you to send those queries.

You're signing up for a contract to send data to them. They get to say what content they want sent to them.

Why not? It's their computer program. You've not paid for the computer program, you've paid to send certain content to their servers. They have every right to say "don't send us this content".

At this point, I'm willing to trust the code Claude produces more than the code that Bob produces. It's far from perfect, but it's better than many a junior dev at this point. I suspect with the next generation of agents, it'll be as good as seniors tbh.

No - we don't limit science only to stuff that has already been replicated. You're requiring a higher standard for this paper than we do for any other simply because you disagree with it.

Not quite, no. The study has put out a paper that spells out what they did, that's their "proof of bona fides" as you put it. Now if you want to tear it down, you need to make a reasoned and rational argument about something in that paper, not just shout on the internet.

Doesn't it? I mean, they've landed boosters, they "landed" the block 3 in the last launch. They've been consistently landing ships for quite a while. Reusing the ships without any refurb still seems a way off, but them making it back safely seems like they have some healthy margins just now.

If you're going to slop and still picked C over Rust in 2026... Ouch.

No it's not. Starship is like the Airbus A330. More efficient per unit volume, *and* more efficient per flight than a plane that explodes when it reaches the gate.

And yet, making it back safely actually appears to be the smaller problem at the moment. Though I'm sure SpaceX will figure their engine issues out.

Honestly, I'd put starship as approaching the reliability of Falcon 9 at this point anyway. Falcon 9 has the occasional failure (rare, but not none). Starship is getting to the point that it fairly reliably gets up there and gets back. It has some engine outs still, but it also has the redundancy to deal with it.

How experimental was SLS? Not at all? A straightforward design based on known-good parts that they stuck together at the cost of many billions per launch.

How experimental was Starship? Almost entirely. A material that's basically never been used for rockets. A method of assembly that's never been used for rockets. An engine design that's entirely new. An engine concept that's never been used before. A fuel that's never been used before. A level of engine performance that's never been done before. A method of pressurising the tanks that's never been used before. A method of aerodynamic control that's never been used before. A method of recovery that's never been tried before... The list goes on and on and on.

Why on earth would you compare the reliability of the two?

Why? Starship, when finally fully reusable (likely within 2-5 launches) will be cheaper to launch than Falcon 9. Not cheaper per kg launched, cheaper per launch. Why on earth would you continue to fly Falcon 9, even for medium lift? Just launch a whole starship, launch a few starlinks along with the contracted medium lift load, and land it again for less cash and more use of the rocket.

I just wanted to let you know that you have successfully driven me off of /., after some 25 years.

Not just you, obviously, the site has been in steep decline for a long time, but you were such a huge asshole that you managed to be the last straw. So, congrats for that. I won't be back.

Well, we know that we *can't* control all of the idiots, they'll simply invent a better idiot. The *only* thing we can change is the AI. The problem is that the AI is a better idiot.