It's worth a percent or two more than it was in May. Does that seem severe? Maybe what happened in between was the weird bit.

Blah blah blah assumption, blah. ACs are copy/paste services.

My only question is why the state isn't proactively identify and deactivating such devices. Seriously, if your shitty device is a threat then I see no reason that it cannot also be forcibly taken offline. People will not give a damn about security no matter how much you implore them (they haven't for decades), so it's time for the stick.

That's a funny way of explaining that they neglected to implement proper security measures and backup measures for decades.

This is ultimately what wishful thinking and downplaying the importance of cybersecurity gets you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Even the modern supermarket was a tool in American anti-Soviet propaganda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There's no need to use the same recovery system for every stage either. That includes the space-based ones. SpaceX's plans for Starship are really based on their goal of going to Mars the first time, and that might work with some tweaks for a few trips to the moon too. The design of the super heavy booster is dictated by the need to refuel Starship in orbit.

The net is more efficient for the first stage and probably a second stage as well. Landing on the moon is best done with a lander designed for that, and if you're serious about regular tirps the transit in between would be best in a space-only vehicle. Eventually you're going to want to build a return booster that runs on stuff you make on the moon too.

I doubt the Chinese will use a reusable booster at all for their first few moon trips, just like the Artemis astronauts aren't going to be launching on Starship.

It's a state-owned company. Have you forgotten what's still going on in China? In the Xinjiang region, over a million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been in "vocational education and training centers" since 2017. If you think that carrying out a genocide doesn't make you an asshole then you are an asshole.

No but I uh understand the human English language and you mean to imply that is what I am suggesting

You might want to study the English language a bit more. Maybe some history too. The revolutionary US is often held up as an attempt to build a classless society, in contrast to Europe's aristocracy. That's not entirely accurate, the US founders had a bunch of different ideas about classism, and, uh, there's slavery of course, but people like John Adams purposely tried to structure the new government to prevent the class tyranny that the old aristocratic systems suffered from.

TLDR: I was agreeing with you.

It's even funnier when you know that the Russians did the same thing in the 90s.

This is a demonstration. 60 feet is pretty modest, the Russians did 20 m in the 90s and planned 60 m. These guys are aiming for 180 ft (~60 m). Even that is fairly modest by what you could potentially do. The US has 100 m dish antennas in orbit.

Little late for that. Like 35 years late.

The booster doesn't go to the moon anyway.

You make a question answering web service and then people pay you to have it answer their questions. How unfair. Oh the humanity.

Did I say you did?

The ESA even famously poo-poo'd the idea, exactly like you guys are doing here.

Sure, and SpaceX is going to cure cancer and let us all live forever for free. The fact that they once did something that somebody somewhere thought they couldn't do doesn't mean they can automatically do anything. Note that SpaceX themselves say they don't really have any idea whether datacentres in space will work.

unlike you and apparently most others on slashdot, I'm not going to try to stop it,

I didn't say anything about stopping it. There are good arguments for proceeding carefully though. A million satellites in one of our most valuable orbits comes with a bunch of problems.

Besides, I'm not seeing the argument for fraud, which is what GP asserted

I didn't reply to the OP, I replied to you:

If that was the intent, it wouldn't really work due to Elon himself having more downside exposure than anybody,

Elon doesn't have any downside. He's never going to sell his shares unless he absolutely has to. He wants to go to Mars, which means SpaceX wants to go to Mars. SpaceX made $75 billion dollars off the IPO, possibly at quite an inflated price. He also gets his Twitter investors off his back as they can now cash out their formerly underwater shares at a significant gain.

Whether any of it is fraud or not is for lawyers to figure out. Every company is going to hype their stock before an IPO. SpaceX says, buried deep in the prospectus, that they really have no idea whether datacentres in space are going to work or not, and they have a few very compelling reasons to push highly speculative, AI-related ideas even if they don't think they're going to work.