>"Without a pen and paper handy, he was stuck texting the idea to himself. Eggers doesn't own a smartphone. "It takes 20 minutes to write a sentence," Eggers said... It's a funny predicament for Eggers,"

Um, if he has a "dumb" cell phone at all that is on, it is tracking his location, essentially the same as a smartphone with GPS off.

He could carry a computer tablet with no cell modem and save stuff to internal storage or SD. It will enable a large on-screen keyboard and with option to voice type/edit off-line. Or a smart phone with no SIM card/data plan and GPS off. There are options.

Honestly, few people on this site are as hilarious as you are. Your main competitors are rsilvergun and drinkypoo.

Obviously. You couldn't be bothered to research the hint I left behind. Or perhaps you missed the hint entirely. Oh well.

I didn't say they don't.

No they don't. It certainly helps to reduce it, but only an UnknowingFool would think a flipped bit or two is necessarily either catastrophic or flight ending/endangering. Even somebody with a basic computer science understanding would understand why that may not be the case.

I didn't say that. What I am saying is there's a faster way to iterate, and even though it has been conclusively proven to work, the ESA still sticks to the old ways.

Actually the private sector has a lot less tolerance for this. Unlike the government, they can't just issue bonds for it and go infinitely into debt.

A few things to unpack here:
- Hubble (not ESA) certainly could, and was, so preceding that with "ESA/NASA projects like" followed by exactly one satellite is just something an UnknowingFool would say.
- James Webb (also not ESA) is rather unique because of its location, not because it's inherently unserviceable. What's more is there's no reason this couldn't change at some point. We may even be able to refuel it to extend its service life. For now, the only real limit is one of feasibility.
- NASA lets ESA have some time for JWST because it allowed them to provide the launch services, even though the ESA introduced three very long delays because of repeated launch engineering faults on their part. By the time it was ready, NASA had alternative launch services available, but it was too late to switch because it was already engineered specifically within the constraints of Ariane.

Even if that were true, it's still an incredibly low defect rate considering the overall size of the constellation. But it's pointless to entertain this because it's not true. To date there have been no more than 350 failed starlink satellites. Given the time Starlink has been around, that is far removed from even one per day. And we don't even know the cause of most of them, which could very well be from debris strikes or natural phenomenon (e.g. solar weather that once took out nearly an entire batch of new satellites, or micrometeor strikes.)

I'd tell you to do some basic research, but that username kind of precludes the possibility of you at least retaining any of that knowledge after you did.

I think you're one of few people on slashdot who's username accurately describes them IRL.

I see you're unfamiliar with the initial failures that Hubble dealt with, because it wasn't operational at the time that it first reached its intended orbital parameters, and required manual servicing just to get it operational. Or the micrometeor strike that slightly degraded JWST. Though JWST is huge compared to starlink birds. And as you said, there's only one of each.

I've noticed how you tend to do that.

Because the only thing that ever goes to space are telescopes. And they get there entirely by themselves. I also believe you don't understand the entire purpose of Ariane, or why it won't actually fulfill that purpose. But do go on.

They did. They tried to play the race/identity card multiple times. And it backfired.

Uh...what? Where are these numbers coming from?

We already do, by the billions. Whether you're aware of it is notwithstanding.

Controlled how? Money doesn't and indeed cannot control it. This has been proven time and time again. We've seen many, many elections where the side that had the largest campaign warchest lost handily. In the case of 2016, it was 11:1 in Hillary's favor. See also Scott Morse, who was literally directly opposed to exactly what his constituency was asking for, outspent the competition handily, had incredible amounts of PAC spending in his favor, and lost handily. Below, I'm going to say "you" and "you guys" because I don't have any political affiliation:

You guys flat out refuse to accept why your guy lost, or at least, that it might, just might be based on the loser's campaign being completely tone-deaf to an issue that's been eating away at its core base, (which I'm not part of, by the way, given I've been doing quite well for myself) if not flat out ignoring and/or telling it its core base to just shut up and deal with it, complete with the most ridiculous advertisements that makes them want to hate the campaign even more than they already did. You can't accept that you just might be wrong on a lot of shit, so instead you want to place the blame somewhere else. Not only does that do you no favors, you guys are hell-bent on breaking the constitution when it's not only totally unnecessary, but it will bite you even harder in the long run than this ever could have.

While you're doing your populist "rah rah rabble rabble" shit against billionaires like morons, some people have done the right thing, and have been trying to figure this one out by actually talking to the base rather than ignoring it (or telling it to shut up, they don't matter, etc) and gathering data. They eventually discovered something, which big shock, has nothing to do with Elon, and nothing to do with billionaires. Instead it has everything to do with what the Harris campaign got totally wrong, which was already following the existing rhetoric of the democratic party at the time:

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx...

Note this bit:

Emphasis mine. In other words: Science. That's also to say nothing of this: https://www.aei.org/op-eds/fiv...

If you don't understand why something like these come off as condescending:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Then you really have no idea why your guy lost. These may as well have been Trump ads. Data wins over ideology any day. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't win elections.

It was a question, followed by a statement borrowing context from another thread, which I erroneously thought this thread followed from, namely the one where a bunch of people were having a populist "rah rah rabble rabble" about how nobody should be allowed to have a net worth of $100M. So yeah, I'll admit that mistake.

The point was quite obvious in context. You stated, and I quote:

"Two years of testing and development doesn't seem unrealistic."

I pointed out the obvious. It's been over 50% longer than that.

But beyond that, "solid state battery is eternally a few years away" has been a thing for well over a decade at this point. It's the same marketing category as "fusion on planet's surface is 50 years away" and "lithium air batteries are 20 years away".

What makes less sense is the way progressives want to tax people based on purely speculative value as if it were dollar bills.

Except it's not money, you just think it is because you don't know (or more likely don't understand/comprehend) what the difference is.

I've been offered exactly this for my shares, and yes, the terms aren't as good as progressives usually think. The motivation behind it primarily is to give you liquidity for everyday expenses without having to sell your shares, which also means you get to keep any gains on them, which tends to benefit you a lot more in the long run, but is not even remotely guaranteed.

You only get somewhere around a fifth or a quarter of the current price of the stock, and if the stock falls in value so much, you'll get socked with a margin call. If you can't pay it, the bank then sells your shares, which violates your equity agreement with the company, which will probably make you ineligible for more shares from your existing grants, and assuming you're eligible for more share grants, your future grants will be lower, meaning you also lose future income.

It's a calculated risk, not a tax dodge or a handout. If you treat it as those, you'll probably be disappointed. In a few posts above, rsilvergun was complaining about how this isn't available to him and people like him -- and that's really for his own good. Same reason the SEC won't allow him to buy into private equity, even if it was offered to him. The law is designed to protect him. In theory, he could do it eventually, but he'd have to somehow prove that he's not a total moron when it comes to finance. But given he's a moron when it comes to virtually everything...good luck with that.

His lockout is 366 days. For 100% of his shares. Full stop.

The employees and early investors get to begin selling shares in as little as a month from now, with the rest gradually becoming available over time, and all of it by 180 days.

This is how it's done everywhere, including for regular employee shares.

Jumpstarting the electric vehicle industry worldwide where countless others failed before him, is abusing the system?
Building the most successful space entity in the world, making the next frontier more accessible to the masses, is abusing the system?

How you figure?

Well considering how bad most software is, it might be able to do some damage. But competent humans are much more of a threat.

concerns about AI safety far more seriously if they were equally concerned about the risks that Grok poses because of its tendency to spew nazi propoganda and it’s world-class capability at generating revenge porn.

"Eyes" available to both open and closed source code. A potential win for all.

Water is wet.

This sort of "let's state the obvious and pretend something so profound was uttered so it can stand on its own with no other commentary"-posting is not helpful.