I didn't say that.

More than once, too.

Telecom experts were saying there's no way you'd be able to bring down the cost of phased array antennas to a reasonable level. Nobody at SpaceX was certain of that either. Then it happened anyway.

https://www.businessinsider.co...

Enjoy some nice fodder from gizmodo about heavy lift rockets being scalable:

https://gizmodo.com/bad-news-f...

Many others as well, like stainless steel instead of carbon fiber, the booster catch, the sheer scale of starlink, supercooled fueling, space lasers, hot staging (without sacrificing the booster), and full-flow staged combustion (which many had tried and failed.) And those are just the ones I can tell you about. There have been failures too, for example the attempt at landing dragon with thrust instead of parachutes.

Then you're just trying to be contrarian.

Nobody said otherwise, however, I don't believe you understand the significance of starlink's orbital parameters with regard to safety. You think you do, but you don't.

Did you even pay attention to what I said? I asked how the GP believes there's fraud going on. Who is defrauding whom? Either you've come here just to be contrarian, or you've come to ask about your genital warts. I don't know which, but if there's a point to any of this, I've yet to hear it.

Who was on his "back" exactly?

And they start with an argument, predicated on a legal theory. I don't see anything resembling either of those. That's exactly what I was asking GP for.

And what's your point? There's uncertainty in business? You're just now figuring this out?

It's not really a catch-22, since there's no need for it to be the same people regulating how much lying you can do about prices and producing goods and services.

It's also not really a catch-22 since, if it weren't for the tolerance of grotesque levels of regulatory capture, any 'capitalist' regulator would take ensuring high quality price signals really seriously.

The part that should upset people is that the 'capitalists' are so far into bed with actively anti-market rent seekers that you can't rely on them to stand up for honest price signals, contract law that isn't so lopsided as to be basically a joke, and so on.

It is definitely a good sign that you need to go with professed 'socialists' just to get some honest price signals in your market economy. Failure to enforce those is among the most fundamental failings one could imagine; yet here we are.

And the data says...

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

False.

This is just something socialists say, and often, because they need naive followers to buy into their crap to obtain any measure of power, but it has no basis in reality. Unless you live in Canada, Europe (except Belgium), or Russia (which would make a lot of sense in your case) but you're using US pricing, which suggests US context.

Even after you adjust for housing, food, health care, taxes, and other mandatory expenses as suggested by rsilvertard, people are still bringing in more.

https://www.macrotrends.net/30...

The disconnect you're having is I operate based on empiricism, in other words, what can be observed and measured, where you're already known to manufacture and/or spread disinformation.

If you are going to anthropomorphize a tool enough to call it "AI" I suppose that it isn't entirely unreasonable to suspect that it might "reflect CCP ideology and values"; but fretting along that line seems to either be ignoring or deliberately obfuscating the difference between running a model and suckling on someone's black-box API.

A local bot can hurt you to the degree that you trust it to actually work; but a remote vendor can(and, given the competitive scramble for training data, almost certainly wants to and will try to to the degree they can get away with it) hurt you both to the degree that you trust it to actually work and to the degree that it can exploit the data and process information you are exfiltrating to them. This aspect is outright advertised as a virtue to some extent(when facebook is going on about how the 'AI' that 'knows you better' will be more useful; or one of the 'foundation model' vendors is promising your boss that, for real this time, improvements will allow next year's digital transformation to still work after it gets rid of you); but there's no reason to believe that it stops there: if the potential of 'AI' is half as interesting as they claim it is why would you expect that your vendor will just sit there obligingly renting you synthetic programmers or virtual back-office functions forever when they could just eat you whole?

For about 2 American money pits racing toward IPOs the chinese models are the scary pirate version that makes their value proposition look even worse than it does by itself; but for literally everyone else it's using the fancy, respectable, foundation model guys that is the glorious future of short-sighted outsourcing; and there's not much reason to expect any of them to like it for reasons beyond stupidity or desperation.

Bringing the cost down is also an engineering problem. NASA and the ESA both said reusable rockets weren't economical even though they already knew it was possible. The ESA even famously poo-poo'd the idea, exactly like you guys are doing here. I personally don't know whether this will work. If somebody -- anybody -- has an idea for how they can make it work, then unlike you and apparently most others on slashdot, I'm not going to try to stop it, nor do I see any good reason for that.

Besides, I'm not seeing the argument for fraud, which is what GP asserted, and is what I responded to. If you disagree, then who is defrauding whom? Perusing an idea that ultimately doesn't work isn't fraud, it's just business. Most ideas don't work, which is why so many businesses fail. That's why investing carries risk.

I realize that it's all about keeping the corporate sponsors happy; but I'm perpetually a bit puzzled by how the 'culture war' stuff never seems to result in any related action on things like food contamination (outside of a few 'crunchy'/'natural' influencers who make some social media noise but are essentially irrelevant from a regulatory perspective).

If one were looking for something remotely resembling intellectual coherence wouldn't the legality of persistent compounds that sure do seem to make endocrinologists nervous in food really get the people who are loudly concerned about biological gender or white birth rates motivated? However much you overestimate the ability of liberal propagandists surely you would take good, old-fashioned, chemical effects on the endocrine system even more seriously?

I didn't cherry-pick anything. You tried to make the consumption sound like a bigger deal than it really is.

Let's see your math then -- show us how much more carbon you save by keeping them on the ground. You're the one making the assertion on this, so put up or shut up. What you're doing here, by the way -- that's handwaving.

I already made it abundantly clear that it's not. Regardless, the concept has already been proven.

https://www.pnnl.gov/news-medi...

Perhaps to fuel a rocket. Gee, ya think?

Actually, normal human tongues are red. The reason yours is that brownish color is because you eat a lot of ass.

I just told you, dingleberry, it's being funded by Starlink.

I didn't give any whataboutism. Putting your numbers into broader perspective isn't whataboutism, it's used purely to indicate how meaningless your argument is just by the sheer scale of it. You literally complained about the entire aggregate carbon output for the entire lifetime of this project, which pales in comparison to just one day of global methane use.

Since you're splitting hairs over trivial amounts of carbon, why not off yourself? Less carbon is less carbon.

I did make it abundantly clear that it's not a thing yet. How much more clear do you need it?

Umm...ok? If you're so certain about that, go short SpaceX and Tesla.

Stop trying to sound intellectual, you're so bad at it. I didn't handwave anything -- I literally told you that I don't know why it didn't work, and in a previous post I already told you that I have no idea if this concept will work at all. Handwaving is doing exactly the opposite, which you'd know if you weren't dumb as a rock.

It certainly is good that any of the properties of an LED that you can measure cheaply and reliably enough to get away with using in consumer electronics are 100% distinct from those of other components or precisely the same LED covered with opaque epoxy.

Just detecting that there's now an open circuit where a diode should be would be fairly trivial and cover the cruder drilling cases; but this will be cosmetic at best against any moderately motivated tampering.

Betteridge again. Not a chance. It's just the old line isn't working so well any more. Turns out people don't fancy being sold a future where everyone not named Altman is a feudal serf fighting for water.

At some point, the only people who subscribe to cable (or satellite) will only be those who flat out aren't interested in having an internet connection along with it. Either way, cable is for old people.

Non-sequitor. GP was specifically talking about going beyond LEO with a two stage rocket and at a low cost. So you came in and put the cart before the horse.

Actually I take back a prior comment I stated about you -- I doubt you understand any engineering at all. If you had, you'd be capable of mentally compartmentalizing problems into their respective domains.

As for why it didn't work in this particular case, I have no idea. I imagine they did the math and determined that it would work, but it obviously didn't. That's why you gather telemetry and iterate on your design. As far as I know, this was their first attempt.

Somewhere in that void you call a head, you concluded that if at first you don't succeed, then it's obviously impossible. This is probably why you never made it anywhere in life, and rather than fixing yourself, you sit here and complain about those who did.

And when did either of these places take away a yacht?

By the way, do you know why Francois Hollande end up lobbying against his own tax hike that was a key part of his campaign platform and promise?

Regardless, if you think the grass is greener, feel free to move there. I tell everybody this -- it doesn't matter where you live -- if you're unhappy there, then why would you stay?

If you already are in your preferred place, then...what are you complaining about?

You guys keep saying that it will work with democracy, but we've already observed exactly how that pans out: After the masses start to realize that this isn't such a hot idea after all, they vote you out. What happens from there depends.

In the case of Croatia, you guys just overthrow democracy under the reasoning (as argued by Karl Marx) this is all inevitable anyways, and you may as well get the red tape out of the way of progress.

In the case of Hungary, the tankies roll in from across the border, and those who still live under democracy and benefit from it cheer them on because they haven't yet had to live under the system they so desire.

The fact is, collectivism, in all of its forms, is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. Collectivism is about surviving. Individualism is about thriving. A case can be made for the former in times of war or famine where the main objective of the day is to live another day. But outside of that, it's not living.