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.

Meanwhile in reality:

1) It was not a case of "WorldVu approached SpaceX looking to purchase rocket launches". Musk and Wyler had been working through all of 2014 on a joint venture. They explored building a joint satellite manufacturing facility and were scouting locations in Florida and Colorado. The talks broke down (Wyler thought Musk's Starlink plan was too ambitious, Musk thought Wyler's wasn't ambitious enough (too expensive satellites, too primitive/conservative tech, too small in number); SpaceX also thought Wyler wanted too much equity ) and each went their own way - SpaceX in-house, WorldVu partnering with Virgin Group and Qualcomm. The former succeeded massively.

2) NEITHER SpaceX nor WorldVu came up with the idea; it was well known in the space industry for decades. It had already had startups try, starting with Teledesic (backed by Gates) in the 1990s. Other smaller LEO constellations like Iridium and Globalstar were already operational. The main scale and price limitations were launch costs, which weren't resolved until the Falcon in the 2010s.

3) SpaceX was already eyeing satellite communications before the JV with WorldVu.. As early as 2004, they hired Larry Williams (of Teledesic) and bought a 10% stake in Surrey Satellite Technology, specifically to explore space-based internet concepts. What WorldVu brought to the table wasn't "the idea of satellite constellations" at all: they owned priority spectrum rights. *That* is what SpaceX wanted from the JV. Not "OMG, this customer has a brilliant idea for a satellite constellation that we never thought of!!!" Wyler had bought Ku-band spectrum from the ITU that was originally allocated to a different defunct 1990s venture, SkyBridge.

Is this what Claude told you to put in your comment?

He said, while failing to understand that it's for controlling our use of our computers. Eyeroll all day.

If the user has no control over it, then it's for the control of the user.

The idea as presented as being in the user's benefit is that the user can control it, but applications cannot.

Is it holding it between the index and middle fingers? "Got your gene! I got your gene!"

This version has a dumber headline, so it's like a whole new story! Three people didn't like it!

Sure, and it's not adequate in many regions.

Just publicly release Flock data for all your officers.We should only accept a surveillance state if it is completely transparent.

The answer is no. Moving up the work hours would mean fewer work hours available. Americans are pushing 50 hours a week on average. You have to work longer hours because pay had keeps going down but rent keeps going up.

The only option is to keep increasing your productivity and hope you get enough to keep your head just barely above water.

If you want to do away with daylight savings time you're going to have to do away with our current anarco capitalist system. You can't have a few nice things in a terrible world. You are going to have all the nice things or you have none of the nice things.

You have to get your kids up and make sure they get dressed and get to school. And you have to do that early because you have to get to work.

Now we could build a civilization around something other than work especially given how much automation we keep doing but fuck that right?

Actually, scratch what I just said because the situation is much worse. A sun synchronous satellite only passes over at sunrise and sunset. If it's noon where you are, the nearest satellite is 90 degrees of longitude away from you. Sending your jobs to a nearby satellite just isn't an option.

Some scientific studies have found that permanent DST is about 2/3rds as good as permanent standard time:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmed.stanford.edu%2Fnews%2F...

And others have found that permanent DST is the worst option:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.berkshireeagle.com...

Considering Trump is pushing this it's probably lucky that he's not manually adjusting the time zone to suit how he feels with no warning.

The FSF position seems kind of misguided to me. The way you maintain the basic freedoms they're talking about is to use open weights models running on hardware you control. If you delegate to a company running their own models on their own hardware, that freedom is already gone. Someone else is in control, not you.

At that point, giving the government an extra point of control doesn't change the basic situation and could be a good thing. That's not to say I trust the government, but I trust OpenAI even less. I'd like to think someone who isn't guided entirely by profit has the ability to step in and stop them from doing dangerous things.