We have absolutely no way of gauging this until after SpaceX goes public.

SpaceX can use the same booster 30 times. NASAs new rocket can use it one time. We don't need to see financial statements to figure this one out.

I wouldn't be too sure. Depends on NASAs mission profiles and a lot of factors. Falcon heavy can bring 26.7t to GTO in expendable mode and only 8t in reusable mode. Reusable cost of Falcon is US$97 million vs US$150 million expendable.

How much does it cost to develop and maintain the reusability? Is it worth the trade-offs in lower tons to orbit due to more weight? Is it worth it adjusting the payload into smaller units, including developing things like refueling in LEO?

Idk, I'm not on the inside doing those calculations...

SpaceX tends to expend cores they've gotten significant use out of, rather than new ones - so the core would have been "paid off" by then.

And nasal didn't build the new rocket! They have paid Boeing 93 BILLION to design and manufacture it.

Everything is estimated.

If you want to trust estimates and "best-guesses", neat.

What this tells me - xAI is essentially a failure, though at what level I'm not sure.

EVs were profitable. The loss of the incentive has meant vendors need to adjust their pricing.

"Profitability" is a momentary property.

You could make ICE cars unprofitable by charging less than they cost to make too.

Well, they pivoted to saying they're going to make robots.

Any day now.

Who in their right mind would buy a robot from Tesla anyway.

That's what we thought about satellite internet and here we are

maybe you want one that can do nazi salutes? /s

Bigotry, mostly. It's usually bigotry.

"The beatings will continue until morale improves."

There is plenty of concern for victims of crime. That's why there are jails, and people in the jails.

I mean yeah, they're not "for" it but you can see how deploying the PD would be helpful as they're more inclined to be non-violent and also I'd reckon they have far more experience than ICE considering the mass requirements which results in many many ICE officers being pretty much just militarized citizens with lacking experience put into stressful situations.

Why are they more inclined to be non-violent?

Maybe the federal government shouldn't be sending "pretty much just militarized citizens with lacking experience" into "stressful situations."

Kooky idea, I know.

Maybe the state government should send the state police to arrest the murderers.

Kooky idea, I know.

A few of the things he says will happen, happen. Many of them happen late.

Most of what he says will happen never happens, but people point to the few things that did happen, but were late, and say, "This too will happen."

Nintendo shareholders seem to have a fundamentally different value set.

I'd argue it's a better one.

Yes, that’s the point.

> not better for making money

I guess this is part of the problem. There is a term for this & it's called greed in such sense.

I will admit that I would love juicy returns on my investments as well but this doesn't make me not (admire?) the value set that Nintendo shareholders might have.

But I do feel like the fact that such options exist where pure capitalist greed can operate is the issue in the first place because if you have this option, then it becomes too lucrative for many to ignore not realizing the inner costs (like currently the AI bubble weights but also before that the moral and social implications of something like amazon let's say where workers had to pee in bottles and were so anti against Union that people were shocked when its videos were released in Youtube and effectively has really impacted all the local shops in your local communities impacting the income of members of your local community.

I guess some sort of regulatory action should be called out on but the govt. is lobbied by these mega-corps again as well so :/

Although that being said, Nintendo's really price jacking and becoming EA. and unironically EA is having a turnover and (actually listening to users?)