Sounds like a really bad strategy if you want to save money. C suite executives should be more than capable of understanding that cost cutting to the point at which they risk not meeting the acceptance criteria for the contract is not a good way to run a company. Apparently even SpaceX's moron in chief could understand this, and they were able to deliver under roughly the same contract terms. Your argument is effectively "if you contract with people who are trying to rip you off, they'll try to rip you off". I'd much rather have a contract with someone like that that says "you need to deliver X, Y, and Z, for $ABC", than one that says "deliver X, Y, and Z, if you need more money to rip me off more, just ask."

Not really - thankfully, itâ(TM)s not a cost plus program. Itâ(TM)s a fixed price contract, so the tax payer will (eventually) get what they paid for, at the price they were meant to pay. Boeing is the one getting screwed by their own incompetence.

In this case, pretty sure theyâ(TM)re overstepping by so much that instead, *no one* will comply with the California standard, and California will just not have 3D printers.

No, what Iâ(TM)m suggesting is that your VM will run as aarch64, but you will be able to use Appleâ(TM)s Rosetta engine within that VM to allow you to run x86-64 processes within that aarch64 VM. UTM has support for doing this if you select apple virtualisation as the underlying VM host.

The underlying virtualisation tech is documented here https://developer.apple.com/do...

And the end user simple version is here (at least for UTM) https://docs.getutm.app/advanc...

Not the Minecraft bedrock server, no.

Yeh, except that at least at the moment, Macs are the cheepest things out there. Even their normally exorbitant memory prices are âoereasonableâ just now because PC RAM prices have gone so nuts.

The few cases Iâ(TM)ve met for this are closed source software someone wants to run like the Minecraft server for example (which is a shame, because it needs single core performance where Appleâ(TM)s CPUs excel). The best way to deal with that on an AppleSilicon Mac is to run Linux in a VM on top of Appleâ(TM)s virtualisation framework. Then you can use Rosetta to run it.

I know several people who have frameworks just because they think itâ(TM)s nice hardware. The upgradability is just a nice bonus for them. So yes, they were considering Macs too.

I mean, why is that a simpler explanation than the age of the universe being wrong? We have really quite a lot of evidence that lambda CDM is not working right.

That, and a $3 component is a *really* expensive one. $3 instead of $0.50 on 10,000,000 devices is $25,000,000.

Do you have a citation for that prediction?

It really wouldnâ(TM)t. Suppose your sats have 5m square in area - I choose this number because thatâ(TM)s what will fit in a stack in a starship. Now give them fold out solar panels, 4 on each side. Thatâ(TM)s 200 m^2 of panels. Solar panels in space generate about 1kW per square metre, so thatâ(TM)s 200kW of power per satellite. A normal nuclear plant will generate somewhere between 500MW and a GW. So to generate the same power you need 2500-5000 satellites. You can launch around 60 of those on a starship, so weâ(TM)re talking 40-80 launches. Based on SpaceXâ(TM)s predictions thatâ(TM)s about $800m-$1.6bn in launches. The intention is that these satellites go into sun synchronous orbit, at between 500 and 2000km altitude. At 2000km, you can stay there basically indefinitely. At 500km, you need some thrust, but youâ(TM)ll stay up there for 10 years passively. So in reality what weâ(TM)re dealing with here is the lifespan of the satelliteâ(TM)s usefulness, not its orbit that we need to worry about. GPUs get faster fast, but the advances are slower. Itâ(TM)s probably fair to assume that the satellites may last 5 years, maybe even a decade given the 5 years lead time here. Given that, letâ(TM)s assume that we need to launch new sats 5 times to match the lifespan of our nuclear plant. So conservatively, $8bn in launches costs.

How much does a nuclear plant cost? Well, vogtleâ(TM)s new units were predicted to cost $14bn. Theyâ(TM)ve so far cost $37bn. And thatâ(TM)s with a bunch of infrastructure all around them already built.

Thatâ(TM)s a *lot* of spare cash to build and operate the satellites right there.

Well, the conservatives have been informing us for sheâ(TM)d that the invisible hand of the market will magically solve it. Because there arenâ(TM)t people doing those jobs, theyâ(TM)ll end up paid more, and thus become more desirable.

Right, itâ(TM)s not a labour shortage, itâ(TM)s a wage shortage.

And since when is a turbopump âoeSpaceX technologyâ, as if no one had done it before.