I have a 2020 Toyota, it had the whole proprietary ecosystem. I tried it a bit, never got it to work even half-way decently, and they ended up shutting it down in 2024, to my understanding leaving a lot of people hanging with even newer vehicles than mine.
Integration was bad enough that just putting a cell phone holder to use google maps on it was better.
It was the last year before Toyota folded and put in android auto and apple carplay.
I would have never bought the car - but, well, a different family member got caught DUI, so I got the car.

I think we need to shoot more for "average". My mom regularly tosses her phone at me telling me to fix it.
I have to explain the remote regularly.
Sure, there are technies that actually built those boxes, but just as many people who just want to watch video.

I think the idea is to pay new cops more, not the old already highest paid cops even more.
Something like double the hiring salary, then cut pay raises from seniority in half.

There was a single specific police department right next to the FBI HQ that decided they didn't want anybody over 135(?) IQ because the FBI would sniper them the moment they got a year's experience.

People who have taken driver's ed still make damn foolish mistakes. As is Waymo currently has a lower accident rate per mile driven than humans do on average.

As such, I consider 'we were made aware of the problem and deployed a fix' to be an acceptable outcome. Much like a teenager who just upgraded from a learner's permit, they should keep improving.

As they keep identifying and fixing bugs, IE incorrect driving decisions, the rate should keep dropping until they're better than all but the best human drivers.

They have about the same population density, around the same amount of roads by population, etc...
We can care because they make for a good test case, especially for the northern USA.

It's like how polling around 1k people should give pretty good results for any question for the entire country, within 3%. Around 10k people for a 95% chance of being within 1% (where exact methodology to ensure a true random sample may be more important).

Now, we shouldn't assume any experience will be 100% the same, but on average we should see similar results.

So Norway has a car for every 1.9 people, and the USA for every 1.2 people.
While a significant difference, it isn't like it is an order of magnitude difference. I also remember seeing figures that places Norway at around the same population density as the USA, and about the same number of roads and distance driven per year.
I'd argue that Norway can and should be examined to inform on actions inside the USA, especially northern areas.

No. It isnt. Your 4% figure is closer to what is needed for a rocket sitting on the earth. LEO alone.
Just getting to LEO means on is roughly 50% of the way to anywhere else in the solar system.
The Apollo missions, for example, were 55%.

I want to remind you that I never said 400 tons of fuel, I just used your numbers. I said 8 launches, calling Musk's 4 bull. Even with only 100 tons/fuel per launch, that's 800 tons without changing stuff up should be allow them to stuff more fuel into starship, saving weight via not needing other cargo stuff, just bigger tanks.

Also, I said "reach the moon", not "land on it".

And changing development timelines is pretty normal.

You're still rewriting the proposals to get your figures.
It isn't 100 tons of fuel per launch, it is closer to 150 that they are figuring. Hundreds of m/s is still many tons of fuel.
10 launches, not 16.
400 tons of fuel plus 220 tons is 620T total, that is about 65% fuel, easily enough to reach the moon.
Landing with 220T would need some more, but as I said, i discounted Musk's statement.

Besides, who says we'll go to the moon with v3 instead of the 200t v4?

And with saying a year or more for 5 launches, SpaceX is expending starships faster now. There isn’t any real reason to thing that they won't have 4 or more rockets and be able to turn them around quickly to get the fuel launched rapidly. Lots of testing and development first though. I'll fully admit that.
Basically just figure that starship will have to same reuse abilities as falcon 9, roughly.

They still aren't reducing payload. 200 tons is intended for block 4, block 3 is 100 tons. 100 tons was the planned payloads for the starships I was looking at.
What you might be missing is that a "refueler" starship isn't necessarily restricted to just its payload capacity for fuel transfer. It could be deliberately redesigned for holding more fuel more efficiently, so when I looked it up, the plan is 8 launches. Not to mention that maybe Starship doesn't need the full 1600 tons for a moon mission. Right now, I'm seeing estimates of 8-10, though higher is possible of course. It's active development, things could change. Musk said it could be as few as four, but I tend to discount him.

Looking, it's around 6 km/s of delta-v to land on the moon from LEO. It should have right around 6 km/s when fully loaded (100 tons). So a full fuel load would be mandated. But they're also figuring on the lunar starship having some fuel on board after launch, and tanker starships being able to move ~150 tons per launch.

16 flights would be a worst case scenario.

Looking at figures for SLS for deliveries to LEO vs TLI, you're looking at needing ~60-70% of the payload to LEO to be propellant for TLI. In an ideal sense, around 50% might work, but 55% is probably the realistic minimum.

I moved zero goalposts. Moving the goalposts is when a person initially supports one position, then changes it when challenged. Given that I'd only made ONE post of the topic, that's hard to do.

The discussion was about equivalency, as you say. Personally, I consider "cost" a very important metric when considering equivalency. It's not like I only looked at cost either, I looked at the total payload as well. I considered the number of launches as well, for which Starship would still be cheaper even if it takes 10 times as many launches.

As for it being a "fucking month" of launches, who says? SpaceX is building multiple starship launch points, they've launched 3 falcon rockets in a single day before, 14 rockets in a single month.
If it takes 10 launches for the mission, that would be closer to two weeks, not a month. They CAN keep it up right now. They've done it before. Yes, lots of stuff to scale up, but you should recognize that Starship is still in development, they can build more hardware and ground equipment as necessary to support this stuff.

Also, is it really worth spending 10 times as much in order to send 1/3rd the stuff "in a single shot" in order to save a week or so? Odds are, given the costs of SLS, that they wouldn't save the time anyways - delays and overruns will still let Starship launch faster (once in service).

And you've actually identified yourself as the moron, thank you very much. You see, I'm not the one that called SLS obsolete. You did.

Somebody did make a price comparison, I did.

And yes, I looked into it. Looking into something doesn't have to be a deep dive, I don't need to be 100% up on the topic.

Besides, v3 is only v3. There's more development room. Besides, you must not have looked into it by your own standard, because v3 is bigger than V2, increasing capacity, bot decreasing it.

For all the savings of launch capacity if it takes 3 launches of starship to equal 1 launch of SLS, Starship costs so much less that we can just build more launch capacity. Ground facilities are not that expensive.

Looking, SLS is 47 metric tons to lunar transfer orbit, starship is 100 to the surface.
But you are right, it is 10-20 expended starships for 1 SLS launch. Closer to 100 for recovered reusable starships.