Except that SpaceX is massively profitable and offering the lowest launch prices compared to anyone by a large margin - so ... why wouldn't people continue to invest?

I checked a few different analyses and they said that comparisons are challenging because Chinese tests are generally much milder and less "real world" than US test regimes. (Not to mention that the Chinese micro ev is sort of a China only vehicle type).
Generally Tesla are ranked extremely well in Chinese "real world" tests too.

These Cassandras have been insisting on the worst cases in every possible alternative for 50y.
Their careers, reputation, and funding is all predicated on worst case scenarios.
Polar bears gone, glaciers gone, North Pole ice free, the Manhattan parkway underwater.

Mountebanks require spectacular claims, or nobody listens.

Most of those big companies were indeed split up by political will, but likewise reigned over industries that barely exist any longer anyway.
Microsoft, Amazon, space x/Tesla, etc are not only the largest firms, they exist in industries that themselves weren't really even imagined 50y ago.

Based on what?
None of these companies really existed AT ALL much more than a decade ago.

"Hubris" ?

So you're just ignoring that this is an experimental vehicle still making test launches, and setting aside the almost complete dominance SpaceX has brought to the privatized launch industry?

https://spacexstock.com/spacex...

Company Launch Cost (LEO) Reusability 2025 Focus
SpaceX $1,500â"$2,720/kg Full booster reusability Starship, Starlink, high launch cadence
United Launch Alliance (ULA) $4,044/kg (Vulcan) Partial (future Vulcan updates) U.S. government contracts
Arianespace $9,167/kg (Ariane 5G) None European sovereignty, GEO launches
Rocket Lab $19,039/kg (Electron) Partial (Neutron in 2025) Medium-lift launches
Blue Origin $60Mâ"$90M/launch (New Glenn) Planned for New Glenn Heavy-lift market, satellite services

Oh, I get it. "Politics"

The big lie is that everything that needs to be built is being built by big tech.

Meanwhile, we need nuclear power plants to keep up with massive growth in electricity demands.

We need desalination plants and people to dump salt in the middle of the ocean to replenish water in local ecosystems.

Those are just two obvious things.

We also need the arts, and more people reading books.

Capitalists only care about the profit in their own silo. The oligarchs are preventing more silos from being built.

That is why you tax their profits at 99% to force them to actually invest their money or pay it out to other people who can find better things to do with it than hoard it.

Funny how this directly salient fact is modded down.

You do understand that SpaceX is - by far - the cheapest orbital company?

SpaceX $2600-6000/kg
Others today: $20,000/kg
NASA (Space Shuttle) $54,000/kg.

Should NASA deliberately be spending more by choosing a more expensive company?

You end your comment with a non sequitur about government wasting money, yet SpaceX - who *does* make a lot from gov't launch contracts, you're not wrong - is CRUSHING the competition.

SpaceX - $2500-$6000/kg depending on mission profile.
Others: ~$20,000/kg
NASA (Space Shuttle era) $55,000/kg.

I'm DELIGHTED the US gov't uses SpaceX. They're saving a HUGE pile of my taxpayer dollars.

How do you complain about the gov't 'wasting money' and yet insist somehow they shouldn't use SpaceX as the cheapest-possible orbital service? How do those facts fit together?

WHO is ostensibly a SCIENTIFIC organization.

Taiwan was a leader in COVID response practices, and whether they want to call it "Taiwan" or "Shangri-La" or "Brigadoon" IDGAF.

In fact, Taiwan expressed concern about human transmission of COVID 12/31/19 but WHO *refused* to acknowledge until China finally admitted it in late Jan 2020.

So fuck WHO: if we know that whatever they think/discover/recommend has to be run-by Xi before the rest of us can know?

Is WHO willing to admit Taiwan is a place, yet?

A master's degree in my personal experience simply denotes someone who was willing to pay an exorbitant amount of $ for 2 more years of "school time" (I'm not going to say learning) in exchange for the ability to claim a "higher" degree.

Aside from my own experience, I know many people with masters degrees. None of us can point to anything meaningfully learned in those 2 (or more) years. It's a ticket punch for cash.

Setting aside my own knowledge from inside, I have worked with *many* MBAs over the years. I've generally found them to be highly talented at presenting themselves and their ideas as brilliant, no matter how intrinsically stupid either may be. I've yet to meet an MBA that was successful, that (in my opinion) wouldn't have been just as successful without the MBA. Most MBAs I've known are merely the business equivalent of highly polished turds.

Note I'm not hashing on academics; I wouldn't say this about PhD's who have to work fairly-to-incredibly hard and demonstrate meaningful knowledge to earn that degree. I generally admire PhDs.

College in 2026 is all about the feelings.
Facts are so 20th century.

https://outrider.org/climate-c...

Chinaâ(TM)s Abandoned, Obsolete Electric Cars Are Piling Up in Cities

"A subsidy-fueled boom helped build China into an electric-car giant but left weed-infested lots across the nation brimming with unwanted battery-powered vehicles."