That’s what I mean by status quo bias. Just because there are roads now doesn’t mean that those are the only option. We have spent a fuckton of money and a fuckton of effort over the last century building these roads. But the problem is that cars don’t scale. Self driving or not. So as we continue to spend fucktons of money and effort on transportation, we should allow ourselves to consider all options. Rebuilding all roads to accommodate self driving cars (as the original tweet implies) is probably the worst option. There are options that are better for the economy, better for the environment, and better for people.

Also, I don’t think any serious person is suggesting replacing ALL roads with rail. Obviously, roads are an important part of any transit network. It’s just that we should not ONLY build roads, and not build ALL roads ONLY for cars.

Building roadways to achieve the current coverage for the entire US was a massive undertaking that required a huge effort over multiple decades. Compared to that, building railways is downright trivial. Let’s not forget that self driving trains already exist, but self driving cars don’t. People should not let their status quo bias blind them to reality.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/Survivorship-bias.svg/1024px-Survivorship-bias.svg.png

WALL-E

To be fair, they changed it in the last couple of years. It used to be that you held the power button to power it off. Now you have to hold the power button AND a volume button for some reason.

With open source firmware. Preferably QMK + VIA.

Matt Patt was consulted when evaluating possible outcomes of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Even better than an emulator is Ship of Harkinian, a full source port to modern PC hardware. It has tons of graphical and QOL improvements, built in randomizer, modern controls if you want.

And to the people that like to say “MM iS beTTeR”, they just released 2 Ship 2 Harkinian.

Old enough to play Ocarina of Time when it came out.

Or at least old enough to play it at your cousin’s house and ask your mom for it for christmas because you really wanted it but she wouldn’t buy it for you because she was in full 90’s helicopter parent mode and thought it looked too scary. I’m sure that’s a universal experience.

You forgot “Squish the cat”.

“The Year Of Linux on Desktops”. Been hearing this for decades, but it might actually be happening.

Been hearing this for decades.

What you’re talking about is usually referred to as a de-orbit burn. Sure somebody could call it a reentry burn, but not SpaceX. What SpaceX calls a reentry burn is the maneuver when a Falcon 9 booster lights its engines as it first hits the atmosphere to slow down and move the heating away from it’s body. Neither the super heavy booster nor the ship make a maneuver like this.

IFT3 did not make a de-orbit burn, and there is not one planned for IFT4 either.

IFT3 was technically suborbital, but only barely. Like a couple hundred km/h short. Literally a couple of seconds longer second stage burn would have put it into a stable orbit. Or the same velocity just with a lower apogee. They intentionally left the perigee just inside the atmosphere so a deorbit burn was not required. This is also the plan for IFT4, iirc. I think they are talking about the bellyflop/suicide burn. It was not planned on IFT3, but is for IFT4.

Both the booster and the ship have attitude control thrusters that you could see firing during the live stream of IFT3. Early prototypes used nitrogen cold-gas thrusters, but were planned to be upgraded to methane/oxygen hot-gas thrusters at some point. I don’t recall if/when they were.

the explosion, which took place at its Boca Chica Starbase facilities

The raptor testing stand at McGregor experienced an anomaly

Well, which is it? I’m going to trust NASASpaceflight over this article and go with it was a McGregor. No where near Starbase. And that means it will likely have no effect on IFT4 as this article says.

edit: Adding to this, the author of this article has no idea what they are talking about.

The Raptor engines that are currently undergoing testing are SpaceX’s Raptor 2 engines

So clearly nothing to do with IFT4, as Ship 29 and Booster 11 are already outfitted with their engines, non of which are Raptor 2s.

On its last flight test, IFT-3, Starship finally reached orbital velocity and it soared around Earth before crashing down into the Indian Ocean. On the next flight, SpaceX aims to perform a reentry burn, allowing Starship to perform a soft landing in the ocean.

IFT3 burned up on reentry, maybe parts of it made it to the ocean, but it was not crashing into the ocean that was the problem. IFT4 does not plan on doing a reentry burn. No one does a reentry burn from orbit. Starship uses a heat shield like every other orbital space craft. They are planning to attempt a landing burn, that is probably what they are talking about.

It has likes/dislikes instead of star ratings, so it is pretty recent.

Wouldn’t that be concentrating, not diluting?