rspeed

Thank you! This is why I have a very mixed opinion of Louis Rossmann. His heart seems to be in the right place, but he provides extremely slanted view of reality.

I had a hell of a time trying to find a pill planner that didn't start on Sunday. I was ready to 3D print one when I found one that's circular.

It would increase operational costs. The satellite lifetime is limited by propellant capacity (especially at the low altitudes where Starlink operates). Mercury thrusters would be significantly less efficient than the krypton thrusters they currently use, due to Mercury's higher atomic mass.

Starship's engines burn methane.

The torch would, most likely, be for emergency methane venting. They had previously used a torch for burning gaseous methane during de-tanking, but have since switched to a condenser to cool it back to a liquid. There would essentially be no reason not to continue that practice, particularly when they'll have a nearly unlimited supply of liquid nitrogen.

All of those would need to get approval by the Texas DOE.

The pretreatment plant is for extracting pure methane from natural gas. That is in the document.

What it ignores is that to perform the maximum number of launches permitted under this new license will consume around 1% of the methane this would produce. This equipment will be be used, at most, a few hours every month, but he's producing numbers under the assumption that it would be running 24/7.

His arguments don't make sense. This environmental study is being performed so that SpaceX can make five orbital launches per year from Boca Chica, but ESG Hound's numbers would be for more than ten per week. I've pointed this out to him and he responded with personal insults.

Not just complex specs. Some of them are proprietary.

It's because of this. Adobe hates us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFA

Further reading: https://eclecticlight.co/2019/06/18/pdf-without-adobe-23-the...

Unsigned disk images.

There are already good solutions to this issue. In particular, simply placing the app package in a zip file, then checking to see if it's installed correctly when opened.

If there isn't a backup, it should at least notify the user of the error. But the OS would know about backups, since it has a built-in backup system.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple adds a cloud-based backup for macOS once APFS is the default filesystem, since change sets would be extremely efficient.

That is little different from a flat-out lie.

> There is not really a UX flow apart from telling the user to recover the file from backup.

There absolutely is, since that could be performed automatically. Inform the user about the corruption, rename the corrupted file, then restore the most recent backup in its place.

The downloads page has links to snapshots of the source.

Edit: Though I suppose the tools are only provided as binaries.

Don't spread bullshit.

Not quite reversal since it doesn't negate the vertical motion, but yeah. Definitely the most significant of the three burns.

Though it's not quite that simple. Based on the trajectory of last week's launch, they're actually going to use a much steeper trajectory during the first stage launch. The result is that the first stage uses significantly less propellant to make that first burn (since its downrange velocity is much smaller), but it cuts into the payload capacity quite a bit by forcing the second stage to do more work.

The third burn here is also a suicide burn. The first one is to change its path and the second is to prevent it from falling too fast.

Compare the amount of force it takes to crush an aluminum can from the sides vs. from the top and bottom. A rocket is the same basic shape and material.

There are a total of three burns:

1. Alter the path so the parabolic arc goes back to the launch site.

2. Braking burn during descent to minimize atmospheric stress.

3. Landing burn (AKA "suicide burn") to slow the vehicle enough for the landing legs to absorb the impact.

It would require significantly more fuel to get the stage to even the Gulf coast of Florida (much less the Atlantic coast) than it would take to return to Brownsville. Additionally, Brownsville launches will almost certainly be aimed between the southern tip of Florida and Cuba, in order to avoid traveling over any populated areas.

Nor is it for Falcon 9. They're launching them as fast as they can build them, and have a significant payload backlog.

> In other words, it will make the whole thing a search field, with some smart url-friendly behaviors, so that most of the time when you enter a url it will take you to that url.

In other words: what Chrome has already done for a very long time.

The component of the URL you check when avoiding phishing attack (the domain) is still displayed.

That's actually fairly old behavior. If you copy the full contents (which is selected by default) it includes the protocol.

> The new change would just make the whole thing a search field.

This is incorrect. Entering a URL into the field produces the exact same behavior as it does with this option disabled. Typing a URL and pressing enter goes directly to that URL. Typing part of a URL that has been previously visited (like "face" => "http://www.facebook.com/") will default to visiting that URL.