Well that's not really the case. Conservatives will accuse progressive of being communists, and claim any social services are examples of communism. But it's mostly those progressives here on Lemmy suggesting communist ideas.
So it's not really ironic, just unsurprising I guess.
I mean you have to realize how important it will be to have fully reusable rockets and a significantly reduced price to get to space. The goal with starship is to reduce the cost of getting to orbit by at least an order of magnitude (but possibly much more than that). When that starts to happen it'll allow for new and exciting things to happen in space.
First, we can go back to the moon and to Mars, we can explore again. But more than that, it will make some new things possible. It will eventually become feasible for resource extraction and manufacturing to move to space. That would mean processes that produce harmful waste don't have to happen on our planet. Mining asteroids would mean again, minimal ecological impact compared to mining a mountain on Earth. And of course creating industry in space is the first step towards a future where people actually live in space, the first step towards humanity getting a real foothold off of earth.
But you literally can't get to any of those possibilities without reusable rockets first, it's just not feasible.
This is the thing, NASA is underfunded as it is, if we nationalized SpaceX, we wouldn't actually continue to fund it appropriately and it would simply die. Actually, with trump at the helm, nationalizing it would mean Trump immediately liquidating it. SpaceX is definitely the most successful rocket company in the US. It would be an awful shame for the space industry and for humanity's future in space.
I hate musk as much as the next guy, but I think the success of spaceX is undeniable. Their success with reusable rockets is not just impressive, it's ground breaking and important. Developing a fully reusable rocket is probably the most important challenge humans are working on in this era, and I only know of three companies attempting to do it. I don't want to kill the company that's furthest along.
That's kinda petty though, I mean to hope an asshole stays a full asshole their whole life, rather than at least doing one good thing for the world, just because that might make them feel good... I mean that's pretty shitty.
I feel like even the worst people should aim to improve. And rooting against that improvement just feels wrong to me.
Wait, what makes this a confirmation? Just cause Elon said it? I mean we all suspected it, that's exactly what I'd expect from Trump. But Elon saying something doesn't make it a fact, the dude loves to shit talk people and he's never needed proof before...
So I'm going to go out on a limb and say Elon doesn't actually know any more than the rest of us. And it also doesn't really matter either way, Trump was a rapist before and a rapist after.
He also lacks the authority to give a single order to anyone in the military. So he could never use the codes. And luckily, between this doge debacle and his not being born in the US, I'm confident in saying he'll never be president.
Yeah, this is the issue. Niche devices don't sell many units, but the same amount of product development has to go into creating them. The result is they need to sell it at a higher price point.
This issue is funnier (or more tragic?) with huge government projects, things like fighter jets. They need to do the R&D either way, so there's a base pricetag of perhaps $200 billion. Now If we build 200 units they end up costing like $1.2 B a piece with most of that cost just being the initial R&D. But let's say we manage to sell 40 to England, 22 to France, 34 to Australia, etc... we could potentially get their "per unit cost" down to 500M a piece just by making and selling more units.
Harvey Milk isn't just a citizen though, he's a military veteran.
The US regularly names vessels after politicians who are also military vets. Presidents often get something big, like an aircraft carrier named after them, lower level public servants tend to get smaller ships.
All that is to say, this isn't just some special case, this is just how we do things. This wasn't DEI, it was the normal state of affairs. So with that in mind, to go out of your way to change this name is so disrespectful... I have trouble describing it.
Plot twist, the future envisioned in the matrix basically does come to pass, except it's not machines turning humans into power, it's the ultra rich turning humans into processing power.
Basically, smaller form factors are probably just better in this case. 3.5" drive bays were designed with more complicated mechanical drives in mind, and given how nand flash memory works, they don't make as much sense for SSDs.
Well, 3.5" SSDs are certainly possible, but 2.5" (or in fact m.2) might just be a better form factor for SSDs. The thing is, an SSD is just a bunch of chips on a PCB, so they really don't need the extra height afforded to them by a 3.5" bay.
You could probably fit 2 pcbs one on top of the other within a 3.5" drive, but that would probably need a third PCB to connect the two which would be more complicated to manufacture and be worse for cooling than using two individual 3.5" or m.2 cards.
Also, for a bunch of reasons smaller is usually better. Generally, it tends to be cheaper to use a few large capacity chips on a small board than it is to use a lot of lower capacity chips on a larger board. Of course fewer parts also means fewer potential points of failure, so better for quality control. And again, smaller cards are better for case airflow and cooling.
Well that's not really the case. Conservatives will accuse progressive of being communists, and claim any social services are examples of communism. But it's mostly those progressives here on Lemmy suggesting communist ideas.
So it's not really ironic, just unsurprising I guess.