You get a lot of people with a lot of different views some of which are just fucking stupid and they're only there because the other side wants to murder them.

The Republican party is basically composed of three groups. You've got the racists, you've got the religious lunatics and you have the ultra wealthy who want to screw us all over. That makes them a lot more cohesive and it's less obvious when there is corruption because being corrupt doesn't conflict with the goals of any of those three groups.

The Democrat party is everybody else. That's because America has first passed the post winner take all voting and that means you've got two parties because if you don't you just have one party and a bunch of small parties that keep losing elections.

In the Democrat party when the party is in good shape this kind of corruption is irrelevant because it doesn't make it very far. You'll notice that it's the Democrat party machine in San Francisco that's all in but they're not really going to be able to do much of anything at a state level let alone in national level by themselves. The corrupt elements of the democratic party will partner with the entire Republican party to screw you over.

But if you took out the Republican party the corrupt elements of the democratic party would be pretty fucking weak. It is only by crossing the aisle that they become a problem. This is how you get fuckers like Kirsten Sinema and Fetterment. And they are a problem only because so many people vote Republican that the Democrats have weak majorities if they ever get one.

Too long didn't read, stop voting Republican and the problem solves itself

Nearly all countries have some level of restrictions on possessing guns, drugs, explosives, and various other things considered harmful. There also are many things that it's legal to possess, but only if they have certain safety features to prevent them from hurting you or other people. So what exactly is the position you're expressing?

- All those restrictions are bad, and none of them should exist?

- Restrictions on some things are ok, but AI shouldn't have any restrictions at all?

- Some restrictions on AI might be ok, but they'd create a slippery slope and lead to worse restrictions, and therefore we should oppose even reasonable restrictions?

- Something else?

Because I can't afford the parking in SF.

My Xeon E5-2650 v2 from 2013 is still chugging along. Although I bought it in 2019 as a NOS/server-pull so it's only 7 years old for me.

Maybe they are anticipating rivals entering that space and want to move on to something where they have more temporary exclusivity. One or more of the US ones will get there sooner or later, and Chinese companies are well on the way too.

It may also be some pressure from the US government, with the goal of getting back to the moon before China does. More resources for Starship, which is supposed to be able to do the whole mission (take off from Earth, fly to the moon, land, take off again, return to Earth, land).

It frustrates me that Steam has become the only platform for a lot of games. While not quite indie, the IL-2 series isn't from a massive developer. You don't seem to be able to buy it anywhere else and simply download an installer.

I need to check if has any DRM too, because I'm not installing that shit on my computer.

It's been the playbook since at least 9/11. If the electorate ever temporarily regains control of their bowels, an new threat is quickly manufactured.

I'm just waiting for them to start whining that the Chinese stole the idea that they rightfully stole first.

A better use of those AI tokens would have been to re-work Firefox into something that is easier to build and work on. The code is horrible and difficult to even compile, which really holds Firefox back and keeps everyone using Chromium as the base of their browsers (Edge, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi etc).

Because nobody is going to use this browser daily and the only way to reduce the dominance of Chrome is to get more browsers to switch away to basing themselves on Firefox. At the moment every Firefox "fork" is little more than a mild re-skin and some changed defaults, or unusable due to being so outdated (Palemoon).

I went to Subway and told the lady to give me a 6 inch chicken tikka on Hearty Italian (TM) with cheese and some sweet sauce. My wife was really impressed by the sandwich I made.

The government assumes we're all criminals or spies. And we the public shouldn't have access to information for issues of officer safety and national security. It's why agents are masked now and often don't even display a badge number. Yet if I blast a guy toting a gun and breaking into my property that refuses to identify himself, then I'm the bad guy. Somewhere along the line we all forgot who the government actually works for: the People.

You have to put up with shitty software for at least 5 or 10 years while your guys catch up.

As crappy as Windows 11 is Teams mostly works now. Microsoft kept getting their asses handed to them by other software companies and because they have limitless money from the office and windows monopolies they can just keep plugging away until they get it which they did.

Other software is still better but teams has finally achieved good enough. And good enough is always good enough.

When you start I new a software package out it is not going to be good enough. So you are the pour money into it until it is or you just force everybody to use it until eventually it gets fixed.

Or you stop using it and you go back to the Monopoly from a nation that is rapidly becoming fascist and hostile to your Nation...

The GP is correct, and you're misinterpreting the financial filing.

The industry widely acknowledges that SpaceX's economics are lucrative. Their marginal cost is an est. $15-25m/flight, vs. a typical commercial contract price of ~$65M and a NASA contract price of ~$100-150M. The small (as a percentage) GAAP operating loss on the launch segment is driven by two factors:

1) Starship development. That falls under the launch segment. Starship development is draining an insane amount of money (~$3B/yr), while earning zero revenue.

2) Internal launches. 3/4ths of Falcon launches are to launch Starlink. This books zero revenue for SpaceX launch services.

The fact that the loss is only ~$1/2B despite these massive leaches on profitability is specifically because Falcon launches are so profitable.

As for your claim that Starlink is "only making money due to free launches", no. Starlink generated $11,4B with $4,4B GAAP in 2025. Merely sum the Starlink GAAP profit and the launch GAAP loss and you'll see nearly $4B in GAAP profit, and that's including the huge drain caused by Starship development costing $3B/yr. Without Starship, the two combined would be turning nearly $7B GAAP profit.

The main leach in corporate profitability has nothing to do with space: it's xAI. They had an operating loss of $6,36B in 2025.

To be clear, it needs to get safely to orbit to be seen as reliable for launches. It doesn't need to make it back safely.

I'll take Things That Never Happened for $1000, Ken.