volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@decembr14 a lot of people seem awfully eager to yell about Musk for some reason and criticizing Starship is part of that.

And facts have absolutely nothing to do with it.

@danwentzel he didn't attempt a coup.

Wrong branch of government.

@lps the problem is that smaller instances and more of them consume exponentially more resources, making the whole system exponentially more expensive to operate.

That's just how the protocol was designed, unfortunately.

People complain about Bitcoin being resource-intensive, but Fediverse faces a similar problem.

@Revertron @kzimmermann

@ScriptFanix well right.

SpaceX built on the knowledge of other efforts that came before and progressed the technology to new stages, building on that. And they absolutely ran computer simulations.

But once you forge new ground like this there is no substitute for experimentation.

And that's exactly what we saw: they are developing new and improved technologies based on the existing work that pushes the field forward, which requires trial to explosion.

There is just no other way to progress the technology, but humanity will be better off for those lessons being learned.

@Gustodon

@MugsysRapSheet right, I don't know why you keep repeating this nonsense that their plan was to put a rocket into orbit when everything we see says otherwise.

All of the announcements, all of the licensing, all of the regulatory approvals, all of the preparations, every single thing about this showed that they intentionally did not plan to orbit the vehicle.

I'm trying to be polite and say that you need some better news sources because apparently you have been misinformed.

But at some point it's really tough to blame your news sources. At some point it just comes down to you apparently being uninterested in contemplating facts that go against this fiction that you cling to for some reason.

No, you're wrong. Everything about this mission debunks your claims here.

@Ghandralph @carlysagan

@KarunaX supporting the US empire? What in the world are you talking about?

@DavidM_yeg

@KarunaX but the UN isn't particularly democratic, as indicated by the security council veto process and the fact that neither you nor I have a vote.

That's just not how the UN works.

@leosam the previous institution lost the faith of the people

@libscie I mean, we voted for it

@jasonemiller wow, no, you're very wrong.

Firstly, the test didn't fail. I don't know what you think the goal of the test was, but it accomplished the milestones that SpaceX set out for it ahead of time. From lift off through staging the test succeeded in milestone after milestone.

They weren't aiming to get the rocket into orbit here. That was intentionally not on the table

But it sounds like you're also ignorant about the tremendous interest that the FAA and other regulatory agencies put into reviewing these activities before approving them.

Yes, the regulators gave quite a shit about all of this, as SpaceX was blocked for quite a long time by the regulatory agencies who were reviewing their operations.

So it sounds like, I don't know who you're listening to, but somebody is giving you wrong information.

@Grandalf@aus.social to add one kind of important detail, reaching orbit was not part of this operation intentionally.

They had designed the operation to splash down in the Pacific Ocean at the farthest without going into orbit, my understanding being that SpaceX was not counting on this test flight to be completely reliable, and so they intentionally did not risk going into orbit where things could be less controllable.

So orbit was never on the table and that fact helps show that this lunch was a success. This was a test vessel and it successfully tested things.

@DavidM_yeg well right, the writing isn't surprising because it's the sort of rating that is biased from the beginning.

It gets the result it sought.

But it's not very informative. It's just really bias confirming, not particularly useful.

@KarunaX

@MoiraEve@mastodon.world that must be it.

@maegul so I haven't looked myself, but I have heard other people say that when they poked around at the documentation they were horrified by it.

I guess you found it actually okay? What did you like about it?

And to lay my cards on the table, when I poked at the ActivityPub standard that horrified me. It looked completely unable to scale, and I felt like instance operators confirmed that when they started talking about the resource consumption.

I do hope that AT is better.

@DavidM_yeg again you're missing that they aren't rules.

For example you cite international obligations while missing that those obligations don't exist.

You might say that the obligations don't exist because the US vetoes them, which is correct, since the US vetoes the obligations they aren't obligations, so they don't stand to be disregarded.

If you don't like what the US does, hey, I'm right there with you, but not because of international rules. The US does sketchy stuff that it probably shouldn't do, but that's because we keep electing crappy officials. It has nothing to do with international rules that don't exist.

@KarunaX

@MoiraEve@mastodon.world I think you answered your own question.

Political and legal realities pressure them to do things regardless of whether it's right or reasonable.

Believe it or not, governments do stupid things. We should speak out against them, which is my point.

If banks are paying out $2 billion dollars that means the rest of us are paying in $2 billion dollars to make up for it. Yay

@MoiraEve@mastodon.world that's another great example of a fee that has always seemed extremely transparent to me.

When a person signs up for a bank account they are given all of the terms very clearly. Things like overdraft fees are put right in front of the person's face. And if you spend more money than you have, well, what does the person think is going to happen?

This isn't rocket science.

Does Biden want to take that option away from people? Because I don't know how banks can be any more transparent than they already are. I mean banks already annoy me repeatedly mailing me information on their terms. In my experience they are transparent to a fault, and I really wish they wouldn't be.

As far as I can tell banks trip over themselves providing basic information to their customers, so what is he talking about?

@MoiraEve@mastodon.world I keep hearing that these fees are a surprise, but every time I book travel I see them very clearly laid out.

So what is he talking about?

As far as I can tell he is just opposed to people being able to select which services they do or don't pay for, because the airlines in my experience put all of the feets right there in your face.

@MoiraEve@mastodon.world I really don't know why we are labeling these as junk fees so readily, when that term seems to have been mainly promoted to promote sensationalized clickbait.

Yes, a person has to pay extra for extra services. I wouldn't call that a junk fee, I would call that buying more service, and also not charging me for services that other people use that I'm not interested in.

So great. Biden wants to make sure people who bring more luggage get to charge me for the cost of that luggage.

And apparently he thinks the general public are so damn stupid they can't figure out how luggage fees work. Which is pretty insulting.

It's all pretty frustrating and we should call him out on it.

@mariyadelano I feel like the answer to your question is that other people won't live in a luxury apartment?