You can't be serious. The wording of every article is in worst way possible while completely ignoring crashes from competitors - i.e. European Space Agency's launch in Norway, lunar landers being lost or even that sub-space Blue Origin all-female flight with such cringe slogan (Taking Up Space) that it's been edited from wiki.
I'm not pinning anything. I'm commenting on why SpaceX failures get more press than SpaceX successes. If it bleeds it leads is the way it's always been. And I'd be remiss to point out that there's /more/ appetite for it in the case of SpaceX because of feelings towards Musk.
Although I feel like SpaceX's successes (many of which have been truly remarkable, like the booster catches) get plenty of press themselves, you make a fair point. I apologize for taking your previous comment in bad faith. :)
Sure but I also remember watching a number of very impressive launches, landings, etc "firsts". Recently I don't recall any of these, and this was watching SpaceX direct streams on their site.
That's one possibility, but another is that they're deterred. Suddenly doing the bad thing hurts, so there's a good chance you'll go find some other person to pick on.
But of course you can't /know/ the outcome beforehand, which is what makes it a high-stakes game. The only thing you know is that if you keep doing nothing they'll have no reason to stop.
I think the mismatch here is in your definition of smartphone. Expand the definition to include any feature beyond placing and receiving phone calls. I live right next door to takes perverse pride in his inability to text. It's a thing.
This whole thread is basically "People who refuse to use technology that has been commonplace for 25 years". Not that they can't use that technology, or that it's unavailable (where I live there are a bunch of programs that give free cellphones to homeless people because it's such a valuable tool for them), but that they just refuse to.
So? I mean bully for them I guess, but why should anyone else care?
This is a great problem to have, if (IME) rare. Step 1 Understand the System helps you figure out when tests can be eliminated as no longer relevant and/or which tests can be merged.
Forgive the dumb question... it's been ages since I've done Amiga programming in C. What behaves differently? Is the lower K of memory mapped, such that null pointer deferences cause excitement rather than simply crashing your program? Or is it something else?
AmigaOS has no memory protection whatsoever. If your program crashes, so does the entire machine. And it will possibly bring your hard drive with it, too.
Not unworkable, but not the most relaxed environment for fast’n’fun cowboy coding. You typically have to reboot a lot.
A1000 has... something. The WORM (write once read many), RAM used for the kickstart, which is latched as read-only after the kickstart has been loaded from floppy by the bootstrap ROM.
You know, that's completely unimportant. The important parts are that 1) Starship stage is under pressure when landing and 2) pressurization makes a thin-walled metal cylinder much stronger resisting buckling. Details of how Starship works and how pressurization is historically used to increase strength are just to support these two points. But if you already have these two points, you should admit that the argument "Starship can't land on legs because there's too big of a risk of buckling" has some counterarguments. And the overall decision isn't as clear as we'd like to have it.
Actually, it is very important. Autogenous pressurization has a much higher risk of pressurization loss than a system which uses inert gases, due to the potential for the ullage gases to mix with the liquid fuel and condense.
This is relevant when designing the landing system.
https://ubuntu.com/certified/202310-32202