For comparison, Starlink V3 satellites have a solar array wingspan of 70 meters.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cctvmanuals.com%2F20...
See also https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgrokipedia.com%2Fpage%2FSt...

They are, of course, technology that is about 40 years later than the ISS design

Ask Jack Smith, but you should wait until the GOP in the senate is done embarrassing themselves trying to perjury trap him.

This is more like worrying when someone successfully brute forces a 6 bit RSA key (which has been doable for a very long time. 6 bits isn't much space to do an exhaustive search in).

I know there is an XKCD about standards (and adding yet one more to create yet more confusion).
"Standards"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxkcd.com%2F927%2F

But that said, HTML, CSS, and JavaScript are all terrible standards in many ways because of their complexity (and major design flaws like JavaScript having vastly too many global variables). Asa an alternative, what if, say, we all just used something like Scheme (or Common Lisp) to encode web documents and web code as S-expressions in some semantically standardized formats? Scheme can be very compact in its implementation.

Or as the XKCD mentioned here says:
"Lessons learned from implementing minimal Scheme six times"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwolodzko.github.io%2Fpo...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxkcd.com%2F297%2F
"Lisp cycles XKCD #297: âoeThose are your fatherâ(TM)s parentheses. Elegant weapons for a more⦠civilized age.â"

Now, it doesn't have to be Lisp-like.I get the paren hate:
"What makes Lisp difficult to read?"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Flisp%2F...

And there is a lot to be said for significant-indentation languages like Occam or Python. Smalltalk is another great language. Or even some variant of a safe C.

Even a Forth-derivative perhaps that could be literally less than ~2K in size at the core. Although I get that there is a fine line between flexible and flabby in readability in a language that can change its own fundamental syntax or that makes naming intermediate variables unlikely as a form of documentation. Same with any language that supports arbitrary macros like C or Scheme which can change the fundamental nature of the language. Although at least in, say, Racket Scheme you see the language level set at the start of some code to know what you are getting into.

The main point is just that yet another adhoc problematical language like JavaScript was not needed (even as TypeScript papers over the worst warts). And CSS conceptually is broken for big projects ("Atomic" CSS is one style to help with that). And adding end tags with names in HTML (like XML) is another broken concept as are other aspects of HTML. Yes, programmers can work around and manage the issue in these web fundamentals, but why should we have to?

While a simpler browser for HTML etc is a good thing if it really is well written, better standards for encoding and sharing information will ultimately get us further and be more energy efficient and be more reliable and be more programmer-friendly.

I've long been a fan of triples for doing some of that data encoding, but that is even further out.

Tangentially, here is a Libre Plane 2021 talk I put together on free standards for social media being more important than free implementations:
"Free/Libre Standards for Social Media and other Communications"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpdfernhout.net%2Flibrepl...

I know this all may sound pie in the sky (and it is, given current social dynamics), but consider if we used the usual buggy lot-of-library junky (and now AI slop) code only with an intent to translate web content encoded in problematical standards into content encoded in better simpler standards for other code to consume. Sort of like Amazon did at one point with a server-side engine to process HTML pages and transform them for low-end Kindle browsers -- but in this case converting HTML plus CSS plus JavaScript into something like, say, S-expressions for web content that was not yet written directly n the simpler standards. Maybe the junky translator code might not be perfect, but it might be good enough and runnable in distant containers so that the local code that processed the simpler standards could be more secure and reliable.

Also related: "Simple Made Easy"
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.infoq.com%2Fpresenta...
"Rich Hickey emphasizes simplicityâ(TM)s virtues over easinessâ(TM), showing that while many choose easiness they may end up with complexity, and the better way is to choose easiness along the simplicity path. ... We should aim for simplicity because simplicity is a prerequisite for reliability. Simple is often erroneously mistaken for easy. "Easy" means "to be at hand", "to be approachable". "Simple" is the opposite of "complex" which means "being intertwined", "being tied together". Simple != easy. ..."

Ideally a group like the US National Institute of Standards and Technology or the US Library of Congress should fund this sort of work. And a group like Archive.org should have a lot of input to those standards on how to make the content simply versionable and simply archivable.

Anyway, just something I have been musing on and off again for many years...

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.

What's the use case for this unless you work for the DoD? Even before we talk about horrendous javascript performance (though surprisingly good Acid scores), where it shows Google maps running at around a frame every 2 seconds when moving around the map, the UI doesn't scale so I literally can't read any text on a 4K monitor. I can't even really make out the symbols they used on the buttons.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand for some people. The wave in Linux numbers is hugely driven by the overwhelming success of the Steam Deck. The usage seems to skyrocket during holiday season precisely because that's a) when people have time, and b) when people travel.

Signed:
Someone who didn't use their own Steam Deck in September, not even once, because he didn't travel anywhere and prefers to play on his PC / PS5 instead. But man I put a lot of hours on it in August while jet setting around the world. Nothing quite like going diving in Indonesia, and then spending a 2 hour surface interval playing Dave the Diver on the Steam Deck :-)

Honestly most Americans would be healthier walking to their letterbox instead of driving to the end of their driveway. I don't think a tiny barely significant change in health is at all relevant for anything other than your desire to push you own personal preference.

Fuck mornings. Let them be dark so I can spend more time enjoying a beer in the afternoon (did the study consider liver damage?)

Everything is always unpopular after it passes. Also mornings are always unpleasant. The question is, do you accept that unpleasantness as a trade-off the mind-blowingly brilliant increase in pleasure that is being able to get home from work and enjoy more a sunny day?

Seriously fuck mornings, whether the sun is up or not. I'd trade every second of sun before work for extra sun after in a heartbeat. I can't sit in outside and enjoy a nice beer before work. My employer does random alcohol testing.

It's not parents. It's society. Schools is just one element of it, but everything we do is somehow interlinked and tied together with common understandings of what constitutes "business hours". The shift is far more difficult than any one subset of people adjusting their schedule, which is why this stuff is fundamentally dealt with at the clock level in the first place.

But one thing is clear: This is *NOT* a problem for a state level. There's nothing worse than dividing clocks further in a country. Yes the timezone may not be ideal for everyone, but there's real benefit into having the largest group of people on a consistent time, especially if you're on a border city.

Fun anecdote 1: It's really fun driving down Tweed Heads in Australia and watching one half of the street suddenly be open while the other isn't because as you cross the road to go from the hairdresser to the cafe you change timezone.

Fun anecdote 2: I found out I lost my job on the news because my brilliant employer released an embargoed press release that was due to be lifted at 10am to coincide with a plant wide meeting taking place at 10am. But they forgot to mention to the media head offices (based in NSW/Victoria) that they were talking about 10am AEST. So at 10am AEDT (9am AEST) I learned that they were closing our plant while drinking a coffee in front of the TV showing breaking news.

Depending on where you live the light before or after work may be a case of not preferencing it before or after, or not having to worry about it at all. The idea that a solution "works best" for people's "natural clocks" is just gas lighting. If it worked best for people there wouldn't be a debate. If it were part of any natural clock we wouldn't have a sudden 1 hour shift.

This won't ever suit everyone. There's only pro and con argument to be made based on people's personal situation and above all: desires.

Me? I say DST year round. Maybe if kids learned there's no scary monster in the dark the next generation wouldn't grow up to be such wimps. And as for the adults? Well I'm not a morning person, fuck those people, let them sit in the dark while I enjoy my evening in the sun :-)

And now let's hear from the morning people.
And the helicopter parents while we're at it.

Or put in basic street lighting while also not raising a bunch of soft little fairy floss wimps?