People do not stop stealing cars because of cameras. But I guess Flock is desperate for some good press, so we get propaganda lies now.

Forget it. This person threw together what they mistake for a good spec of a browser and then asked Claude to build it. They do not have the skills to do any real work, LLM support or not. This whole thing is just yet another meaningless stunt that impresses the clueless.

That depends. For example, a Linux kernel basically clears everything out and does everything itself. Hence the drivers for most hardware can be taken from that. Also note that for booting you only need a small part of the "full range of modern hardware" to work and there are quite a few standardized interfaces for storage.

The only thing impressive here is the sheer undiluted stupidity of the approach and of the ones cheering for it. Like you.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Like so many incompetents that cheer for LLMs.

And if the browser is NOT secure, you have several times the problems. Your point?

Unless they get some serious competition they can just up the price of their launches and close that revenue hole at their own leisure.

Alternatively they can shut down their production line tomorrow and reconstitute it next year. Because they own almlst all of it.

I wouldn't pit too much stock in prognosticating either way.

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

Thank you for sharing this meme, which is completely unsuitable for this case.

In a Free to Play game, customer isn't a product. In-game purchases are the product. To get the customer to the product, customer must first install and play the game.

I'd wish for the opposite: Suppose a modern browser would use libraries for everything. A video element? Use the appropriate system libraries. Canvas? Could probably be implemented using some Gtk/Qt drawing primitives. And then you don't need to update a 200 MB browser each time a single component needs an update, but your usual system-wide updates also update the relevant browser components, without changing the overall browser experience. Browsers could also share these libraries. Why does each browser need to implement and own canvas element instead of sharing a libhtmlcanvas that is a central point for the implementation that is known, can be audited and has a well-defined API allowing for drop-in replacements (e.g. for when the next person wants to reimplement it in rust)? Browser even bundle video codecs ... isn't that something systems should provide to applications?

>"A browser that does not support ad blocking is a non-starter. You simply can't use today's Internet without ad blocking in place."

I agree. It is why you should use Firefox + UBO, or one of its forks (LibreWolf, WaterFox, whatever). But that is why I said the use case is for things like a wiki, documentation, appliances, or for testing. The same type of things one might do with Dillo.

Not just kill switches, much of the push for safety in AI has been theater. Even the proclamations by the AI wizards about how dangerous and rogue their technology is have been to the end of co-opting any real push for regulation. Screaming about safety allows them to control the narrative - defining what the problems are and how to fix them. Meaning, never the real problems, and never the real fixes.

The real "kill switch" for this stuff is the switch you throw on the electric chair, with an A.I. executive strapped inside. Stops it right away.

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.

You seem to have really low standards.

You are being too kind. Any issue that benefits MS being reported anonymously is very likely a direct lie and needs strong evidence to the contrary to even begin to be credible. MS has a long history of dishonest and illegal business practices.