That is correct, but in the sense that I believe he hasn't given up on actual socialism. His honeymoon was in a country full of destitute people living under a socialist dictatorship, which is apparently what he considers to be a vacation, especially one that gets him in the mood for sex. He very openly advocated for a command economy in the 70s. He only gave it up somewhere around the fall of the USSR, but every now and then you'll hear words out of him that sound a lot like he thinks he should have the authority to decide what direction the economy must go in. Shutting down AI systems, datacenters, etc, is just yet another example of that.

Anything he talks about that isn't going towards the direction of a full command economy is basically what he might say but doesn't really believe in.

It can no more do that than you can.

And every accurate history textbook.

It's a bit late to ask questions. They're already being sold and actively used. If anything happens, the damage will have already been done at this point. The most you could do is block future imports and sales. Then you'll have to explain to the constituency why you're having to brick their cars, which almost certainly won't go over well. Just like Nordstream 1 and 2 kept Europeans actively funding Russia's wermacht until an unfortunate mishap. Oh Well.

Besides, even if we were aware of anything ongoing, you'd just ignore us anyways. You always do. So disregard what I'm saying -- the message wasn't even intended for you anyway.

I very much agree. Why did you think I often confront you?

The problem is they're trying to build EVs as if they're ICE but with a battery.

Chinese companies literally copied the way Tesla does it, and they did it very quickly. The problem with legacy automakers is they haven't yet caught up, and who knows if they ever will. They already know what they're doing wrong, and they have known for over a decade, with no indication that they're even trying to catch up.

IMO if you buy a Chinese car and Xi Jinping pulls the plug on you, that's your problem. And I couldn't care less about the legacy three or the UAW -- those two deserve each other, they've been digging each other's graves for the last 50 years, always counting on government bailouts to let them stay complacent and shitty rather than competitive.

My concern is opsec, namely the ability to passively surveil basically everything in and around these cars at eye level. Those who don't deal with security for a living (this is another place where infosec and physsec meet) have no idea just how big of a deal that is. And make no mistake about it: The CCP WILL abuse this. They've already done something similar, and continue to surveil and police even their own citizens no matter where they are.

Europeans and Canadians will almost certainly balk at that notion and brush this off as paranoia, which I'm expecting because they aren't concerned about security at all, even if it's against a known adversary -- remember, they were totally fine with becoming increasingly dependent upon Russia for their energy economy despite warnings for decades about how Russia planned to abuse that relationship. They were also ignoring the US's request that they spend more on their own national defense, some even arguing that they don't need militaries anymore. Then all of a sudden the third Russian Reich (Tsardumb of Russia -> USSR -> Putlerdumb of Russia) invades Ukraine while Europe has it's pants down with it's ass still in the offering position, and yet again, despite years of warning. It really doesn't matter what you tell them.

If they can separate the software side of these cars away from CCP access, they can come right in as far as I'm concerned. Tesla and Toyota have already proven that they compete favorably against BYD when all else is equal.

https://www.notateslaapp.com/n...

The trend in the past has been that a medical treatment is incredibly expensive when first introduced, then decreases in price as it becomes further down the learning curve, until eventually it's commonplace.

Sure would be nice to be able to get away from requiring human donors.

You have no idea what I'm talking about. Put it this way: I know more about your religion than you do.

This is Bernie we're talking about. He wants to ban everything that doesn't directly benefit the bolshevik revolution. Sure, they're not actually a majority or even close to it, but when did losing an election ever stop a socialist party once it gained any meaningful measure of power?

Not exactly, but still within the ballpark.

Nothing will change until lots of people die (not just from the effects of such, but also things like "the boomer generation fuck off"), and/or the billionaires get hit in the wallet.

Same old story.

I believe there's more to this than you're aware. The biggest thing is likely the fact that SpaceX already had multiple other rockets ready to replace it. Blue origin does not. Now imagine the cost of a one-off car vs a mass produced car. New Glenn is more akin to the former, falcon 9 the latter.

That particular falcon 9 was also the first to use what's basically (but not quite) supercooled fuel in order to hold more fuel overall. The RUD was related to that. The concept worked by the way, the very next falcon used it, but without the flaw that caused the RUD.

The way blue origin works is the same way old space works: Design the rocket from 0% to 100% before you test anything. If you want to try anything new that might improve the rocket, you'll have to prove the concept first, then wait one or two years for the rocket we build at that time.

It's not really an apples to apples comparison. You wonder why SpaceX doesn't treat a lost rocket as a big deal where everybody else does. Well, this is why. Same reason you think starship is some sort of joke or vanity project: You're expecting the very first rocket to be fully developed and production ready with all planned features implemented. SpaceX does not.

Blue origin is older than SpaceX and were better funded at the beginning. The first booster SpaceX landed was never reused.

Remember also that around 2018 or so, blue origin poached many SpaceX engineers with the promise of better compensation (which is an interesting story in itself, the short version is: they were promised shares that went up in smoke, they ended up with much worse compensation.) They likely picked up some of that knowledge that way. But it's moot: The problem at blue origin isn't engineers, it's management.

Not really. The reason SpaceX makes constant iterative changes is because it keeps each per-unit cost much lower and much easier to replace, and overall progress goes much faster and lower cost. You're likely unaware that blue origin is in fact the older company that was better funded at the start. SpaceX is and has been leapfrogging blue origin, not the other way around, even though SpaceX is and has been already ahead.

Starship has enough payload to orbit capacity to carry a dead weight New Glenn to orbit. That's just how much of a different scale we're talking about here. And did I mention it operates at a lower cost?

There's a reason SpaceX can (and does) shrug off RUDs where others can't: A complete loss of vehicle is maybe a 3 month setback for SpaceX. For blue origin, ESA, ULA, others, it's much longer.

Your hate boner for Elon will only allow you to believe none of this is true, but the results speak for themselves. You like to go out of your way to praise China even where it is unwarranted, so you might want to look at who the Chinese players in this are trying to copy.