Unlurker|Replay|About
L3Harris Statement on the Nov. 13 Ground Stop (l3harris.com)
•
By "modernizing" they mean making it equivalently fragile and flaky to such modern wonders as Github and Microsoft 363?
•
Ahh, these frigging guys... So I bought a Fortigate firewall on ebay some years back for a lab device, I password recovered it to break in and recover it, and it came up registered to them, and still under Enterprise license support for like 6mo. Great, that's exactly what I wanted for a lab device! I looked them up to see they were a defense contractor, ok, so more money than brains. I'll take advantage... That 6mo came and went, and they renewed the support on it for another year, and my firewall saw the entitlement. Even better, I continued to use it. After 4 years finally the device went EOL/EOS and expired with no more support available, I was sad. Obviously these guys are fsckheads, more money and contracts from friends in high places than brains. This totally explains why the air system melted down!
•
Oh, these are defense contractors, that explains a lot about this non-statement. I had thought the L3 was from Level 3 Communications and Harris, but its actually L3 Technologies which seems to be a holding company for defense contractors.
•
FYI, CenturyLink bought Level3 something like 10 years ago and then re-branded as Lumen during COVID.
•
> This website uses cookies and similar technologies, which we collectively refer to here as "cookies."[sic] L3Harris uses cookies to improve your experience on our website Great first impression from a technical company
•
> L3Harris takes the nationwide ground stop and its impact on travelers, airlines and air traffic operations seriously. Thank goodness
•
I mean they could have taken it humorously I guess.
•
personal perspective- L3X has repeatedly demonstrated a corporate culture of accountability allergy. spiderman meme was made for L3. I think it goes up and down the chain
•
This is standard practice for basically all defense contractors. I don't think there's hardly any of them that strive for excellence, just for next year's contract.
•
Very surprised because I know several fellow alumni that went on to do extremely technical low level "frontier level" work there. Due to the secret nature of their operations, what they literally do day to day is an angle I don't know much about so maybe its all nonsense but I don't get that feeling.
•
I'm glad they're taking this seriously
•
I kinda wish they'd take it "very seriously". Corporate communications generally take issues "very seriously". The fact that they're only taking it "seriously" makes me wonder if they're really taking it seriously or not.
•
Its like the people who are 101% committed dont sound as committed as the people that are 200% committed.
Nvidia deliberately kept GPU prices high through circular financing deals (techspot.com)
•
Looks like this claim was coming from Ed Zitron https://respawnfirst.com/multiple-reports-say-nvidia-manufactured-the-gaming-gpu-crisis-by-forcing-big-tech-to-stockpile-unused-ai-hardware/
•
Jensen Huang made mistakes that gave opportunities to his enemies. But the bigger mistake was his incredible greed, he should have been a happy supplier of an extremely valuable product, and accept competition and that his quasi-monopoly was only transient. But he wanted the entire cake for himself. Greed and hubris. I think the turbulences will be painful to some, especially those who counted on Nvidia stock to finance their retirement. But, big picture, this is good news.
•
But they don't have a monopoly. Their marketshare is sinking, down to perhaps 45% of estimated TSMC CoWoS supply next year (down from close to 70% last year).
•
Not a monopoly. 3dfx is going to drop the voodoo 6 soon
Nvidia should be broken up.
•
Into what exactly? They have a single product that makes them money.
•
Especially with the buyout of SchedMD, who support Slurm for these large HPC clusters doing the AI training.
The free market where every innovation is locked up for 20 years behind patent walls? That free market?
•
People forget just how unfree free markets are. Of course, free markets tend to become unfree without regulation they are a bit of a unicorn.
•
name a single market that is unfree and unregulated
•
The free market that chose of it's own volition to allow participants to either optionally utilize copyright or not?
•
I'd love to be able to opt out and ignore copyright laws actually. That would be amazing. Let people ignore the government enforced monopoly and produce what they want in the free market.
I don't have a WSJ subscription, but was there actually anything weird about the deals? I mean it seems pretty normal.
•
"Nvidia was in talks to provide billions of dollars of guarantees to companies that couldn’t afford its chips. That included deals led by Huang’s son-in-law, Nico Caprez, who had been offering upstart cloud providers and data-center developers financing in the hopes of turning them into long-term customers." ... "Amid the rollout of the program, Kress raised questions including how to decide which deals to pursue, how to value the guarantees, and how to calculate the return on investment, a person familiar with the matter said. Behind the scenes, she tried to rein in Huang’s son-in-law, who had been promoted to a vice president in January, people who worked with her said." ---------- -- https://archive.is/gx14x It sounds like there may have been a little bit of Nepotism. This article also suggests that Huang himself was uncomfortable with the deals Nvidia and the data centres it had invested in were making, although he appeared to shift blame onto those running the data-centres. ------------- "In Berlin during a conference, Huang, accompanied by his top sales executives, broadcast a new message to a half-dozen CEOs of companies that are major buyers of Nvidia chips who were seated around a circular table. He opened with a story that sounded like a fable, according to people who attended. Huang had once found a soup vendor in Japan, he said, with a long line of customers. He joined the line, and after a long wait, enjoyed one of the best bowls of soup he’d ever had. When he asked for another serving, the soup-seller told him no—he had too many customers waiting and not enough soup for all of them. “He’s a better businessperson than all of you,” Huang told the cloud computing CEOs. The soup-man doesn’t sell out all his inventory to one or two customers, but instead keeps prices high and his customer base diverse, the CEO said. “You are not establishing the value of my products,” he said."
Forcing your customers to buy additional hardware they don't need to inflate the prices of your own product is a crime in the united states of america. It get worse when we find out they did it to increase nvidia production for the purpose of being able to redirect more output to china. The whole entire AI bubble was actually jensen's smuggling operation to china. These large data centers have no purpose and cost more money in power grid upgrades than any company will ever make operating them. The only winners look to be jensen's bank account, the bank accounts of the CEOs that signed the deals to buy unneeded hardware, and the chinese buisnesses that were able to buy more nvidia graphics cards. It is not a crime for these CEOs to drive their companies into the ground to make themselves richer. Most CEOs do this today. It is a crime if we find out all of this was really a chinese smuggling operation and that would make it the largest crime per monetary value in US history. Everyone who made money on this smuggling ring has criminal liability. Just like with madoff, the people who withdrew gains had to pay it back because the gains weren't real. Not paying it back would make you an accomplice.
•
Forcing your customers to buy additional hardware Ok that sounds interesting and it's not in this article. Where can I learn about that?
•
AFAIR nvidia did that by threatening to basically ban them from future supply if they don't buy more than they need now. A quick search turned this article up https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/faa-orders-nationwide-ground-stop-citing-extraordinary-safety-concerns-5026489
How did Woz write the Apple 1 BASIC before building the computer? (retrocomputing.stackexchange.com)
•
I only had to assemble instructions by hand three times in my career. It is not difficult if you are already familiar with the ISA of that particular processor, but it is tedious. The first time was in my first job writing OpenGL ES 2.0 blending operations for the Imagination Technologies SGX 535, which was a remarkably advanced little GPU for its time. Alpha blending happened through special instructions in the fragment/pixel shader. We did have a compiler, but it didn't handle blending, for whatever reason. Through testing I noticed that NVidia GPUs performed blending incorrectly, according to the specification, which was a big surprise. Only years later I figured out that the specification had some errors; I now would bet that NVidia was doing the correct thing. The second time I had to assemble instructions by hand happened while working on a stripped down version of the Radeon 7xxx series that shipped on some mobile phones. I don't recall what the problem was, whether we were adding a feature or optimizing the microcode generated for a particular OpenGL operation, but it involved a rarely-used feature called user-defined clipping planes. We didn't have an assembler for that GPU; all microcode was assembled by hand. The third time happened at NVidia, and I will be vague, as not enough time has passed for me to be comfortable going into any detail. I had an idea for how to provide hardware acceleration for persistent CUDA kernels, which eventually was marketed as Cluster Launch Control (CLC). In order to quantify the benefit of adding some hardware, when it was possible to approximate that functionality in software, I needed to test the most efficient software implementation that was possible, and the compiler wasn't quite giving the assembly I wanted, so I had to manually patch some instructions post-compilation. Why did I not use the assembler that was available? I couldn't, because the assembly language did not provide a way to express the exact feature I had to patch.
•
What Woz did was the default way of writing assembly language programs for owners of 8-bit computers (mostly hobbyists). You didn't have money for a second machine, so you wrote your program on paper, you entered it then tested it in situ. Mostly you got it right, as doing it on paper was slow and meant you had the opportunity to put lots of thought into it. 8-bit instruction sets were simple enough that you eventually learned the most common instructions by heart. There was a point where I could mostly translate a Z80 program from assembly to machine code from (my) memory. Maybe that is part of the nostalgia for the 8-bit days: the practice of "slow programming"? It was relaxing, sort of like those "slow tv" shows.
•
My first exposure was Commodore PET computers at the high school (I'm old). Nobody had home computers then, this stuff was crazy expensive, even a floppy disk (singular!) to save your work on the shared drive (on a dolly - it could be hotplugged) was >$20 in today's money. But what you could use all you want was the line printer (a CBM 2022) and its consumables. So at the end of whatever computer room time you could scrounge (lunch, who needs lunch?) you'd print off your 3-4 page epic program to continue coding and debugging with a pencil, on the long school bus ride. This does form "slow" habits. To this day I detest autocomplete, autoindent, syntax highlighters and the like. Never did hand assemble though.
•
There was a #hexcoders channel on IRC back in the 90s, admittedly very dead, and not just because octal is better for x86 code.
SpaceX catches the Starship to end Flight 15 (x.com)
•
The "Baby Come Back" soundtrack really brought this home for me. What an incredible achievement. Very moving.
•
To everyone who works at SpaceX and read this. You are all amazing. I hope other great minds at SpaceX are well remembered into the far future.
•
Starship is, essentially, Space Shuttle done right: fully reusable booster without solid boosters (avoids Challenger disaster) and orbiter stacked on top instead of on the side (avoid Columbia disaster). The original designs for the Space Shuttle had the booster (with wings!) return to the launch site, but the cost for two new crewed vehicles was too large, so they scaled it back to the compromised version. Even more revolutionary, compared to Shuttle, Starship is built on an assembly line. They can build a booster ever 4 weeks and a ship every 2 weeks. The future we were promised in the 1970s is about to become real.
•
>> Even more revolutionary, compared to Shuttle, Starship is built on an assembly line. They can build a booster ever 4 weeks and a ship every 2 weeks. Note that they are also scaling up production in a big way, because they want to launch weekly soon, and then daily. Not sure if we will get to the latter anytime soon but I'm also not going to bet against Elon.
Huge congratulations to the engineering team on this one! It's been quite interesting to watch the evolution of Starship. Had they put another couple of tonnes of propellant and oxidizer on the Booster they might have caught both of them. It is still unclear to me what the final mass fraction to orbit will work out to be, but something that is 100% re-usable is better than something 60% reusable[1]. [1] Estimate of Falcon 9's booster + fairings being 60% (by cost, not by mass) of the launch package.
•
It looks like they delivered 50 tons today. Even if it stays this way, it will still reduce price to orbit significantly.
This changes nothing, in space fuel transfer between ships is the make it or break it.
•
It changes cost to put up satellites, which is very significant. It might not change much for mars
It’s needed to go to the Moon based on the current Artemis design
•
If the simple industrial process of pumping liquid from one tank to another is too difficult, one wonders exactly what sort of society anyone could imagine building in space. The main reason fuel depots and fuel transfer were disparaged was to protect the gravy train of SLS. But that's essentially over.
Which is of secondary concern. SpaceX makes money on Starlink, not launches.
•
This depends on what you're considering to be the main goal of Starship. Both of you are correct that Starship's stated goals included what you're considering the goal.
Fuel transfer seems like a trivial problem next to the reusable heat shield. And even if for some weird reason it never works, the program could likely pay for itself just launching Starlink/Starshield with full reuse.
•
I don't know -- that fuel transfer scene in Armageddon was pretty sketchy!
Yeah, I'm eagerly awaiting results from inspection of the heat shield (which hopefully they will disclose). Reflight without refurbishment is the last goal they need to hit before the system can be considered a success. After that, optimizing for increased payload and nailing reliability will be the things to work on. And of course orbital refueling for HLS.
•
They already recovered a ship from that one time they accidentally landed one in the ocean. SpaceX got to have a lot of heatshield endurance data by now.
You can see a plane passing underneath it at video timestamp 22:44:43!
•
Nice catch (NPI)! Unfortunately I think it's a bit more mundane, it'll be a piece of ice breaking off the lower section of the body. If you scrub through the footage, particularly earlier in the flight (e.g. 1:43:37 on the SpaceX stream, T+54:05) you'll see other pieces of ice flying off that look very similar.
The space shuttle orbiter definitely had a lot more cool factor.
•
It also had a large stupid factor. Like one of von Braun's Germans was reported to have said: "they reinvented the wheel -- and made it square."
•
I think I’m convinced that VTOL is a better engineering trade off for space ships rather than making space planes.
It was extremely cool 45+ years ago. But the space race ended, and while government-funded space programs did some fantastic work beyond that (space telescopes and Mars landers), it took capitalism to develop the resuable rocket, then scale it up to Starship proportions.
•
Like 50% of SpaceXs initial development came from tax payer money.
•
The government was a customer. That’s very different from the government giving a research grant. That’s like saying 25% of Exxon’s development came from tax payer money because the government uses a shitload of oil.
I unfortunately agree. Years ago I realized the Mars talk was just talk when I noticed that Musk and SpaceX were not funding any of the other stuff you’d need to fund if you wanted to “make life multiplanetary.” Continuing to iterate on self contained biospheres and long term closed cycle life support? (Not a solved problem!) Working on construction techniques for the Moon or Mars? Studies on the dose response curve for gravity, like sponsoring a spin lab for the ISS to at least see if mice can reproduce in 0.3g? Self contained industrial infrastructure leaning heavily on 3D printers? Psychological research on the best way to build interiors and run social units? Musk could personally fund all of that with little impact on his net worth. It’s also decades of work. Some of what I listed is harder than the rockets. Better get started if you want to have a settlement on Mars this century. Nope. Nothing. Just rockets, the a satellite network that is clearly “dual use.” Then Trump 2.0 and lots of “golden dome” (Star Wars 2.0) talk. It’s not to go to Mars. I love space and I hugely admire the engineering achievement, but it’s disappointing to learn for this and many other reasons that the people behind it were not the visionaries they pretended to be. They’re just more territorial apes obsessed with ape tribal stuff like race and nationalism and fighting over dirt at the bottom of a gravity well. Small minds with big toys.
•
I don’t think is right at all. It’s just Musk focusing on the fundamentals of ‘what is stopping us making significantly (100x or 1000x) more progress on space exploration. And the answer to that is that it’s just too expensive to launch mass off the earth. If you make it much cheaper, then everything else flows from that. You no longer have to spend years engineering everything at the cutting edge of your mass budget. You can use off the shelf parts, you can have redundancy. The gains will come when these flights become commonplace.
> a spin lab for the ISS to at least see if mice can reproduce in 0.3g? That was done and the results were published a few months ago, but the study did not have any relationship with SpaceX. The results were rather pessimistic for the long-term missions on Moon or Mars. In my opinion, even if it is possible that humans might support a somewhat lower gravity than mice, the conclusion is that for interplanetary travel humans must use only spaceships that create artificial gravity by rotation. The results of the study were that mice require a gravity of at least 2/3 of that of Earth to stay in perfect health and of at least 1/3 of that of Earth to avoid extremely severe health damage. This means that even on Mars the gravity is not sufficient for long-term human life. In an underground Mars base, one could make a part with increased gravity by rotation, where the crew should spend most of the time, but that would increase a lot the complexity of building and maintaining such a base.
•
Or by constant thrust at 1/3g, or a mix of thrust and rotation that achieves sufficient acceleration, though spinning + thrust means precession which I’m glad isn’t my job to zero out. Unless someone invents the Epstein drive we aren’t going to have astronauts experiencing acceleration for months rather than minutes of the trip. And the more constant the acceleration the shorter the trip anyway.
Oh I doubt very much he has given up on that. He's smart enough to know that the delivery time is going to be extremely variable, and that most of the other problems involve figuring out how to make the place palatable to humans, which is just too far in the future right now. Don't bite off more than you can chew.
•
> which is just too far in the future right now. How much time is needed to do the required research? Like, how long it would take to learn how to create an artificial biosphere on a small scale, so you can have a farm on the Moon or Mars? 10 years? 20 years? Maybe 50 years? Isn't now is the good time to start the research?
Starship HLS has landing gear. For Earth landings everything is so marginal that the weight penalty of landing gear is too high.
•
Also, landing it on the chopsticks makes rapid turnaround easier.
I imagine this is what it was like to witness Apollo 11 55 years ago.
•
I was nine. I remember our black and white TV, the crackling from the picture tube's high voltage wiring adding a tang of ozone. We stayed up late that night.
If you want the Vulcans to take notice, you gotta get to warp speed. Building the transporter of the parts/pieces of that kind of ship is just the first step.
•
I do like this take though
Do we just look past the failed primary booster objective? (I didn't write the brief) Edit: Yes, ignore that bit.
•
We don't have to look past it. Musk said it failed because engine underperformance caused too little fuel margin. He added that they have upgrades due on future flights. If they ran out of fuel with 50 tons of payload it certainly begs the question of whether they will get to the goal of 100 tons of payload even with upgrades. They also had engine fail on boostback. Reliability has been a persistent problem, they'll have to fix it for refueling and manned operations.
To pick just one achievement among many, the Raptor engines on the Starship are literally revolutionary. First ever full-flow staged combustion engine, designed for both extreme reliability and cheap mass production, even the fuel they use (methalox) had never been tried at this scale.
•
I agree with the engineering of Raptor engines, fair and square but does that have anything to do with catching ar ocket?
“The James Webb telescope is just a three mirror korsch telescope in space. We’ve known how to build those since the 30s and we’ve been putting telescopes in space since the 60s. Doesn’t seem that impressive” This is what you sound like to everyone else here
•
And i can easily explain to you why this is not the case. They put the most advanced telescope at L2 which is the most remote location 1.5 million km away which can't be serviced and can't be rebuild easily. It has nanometer optical precision in space which needs to be cooled through multiply layers of high tec foil. Its mirrors are precicse to nm level. Took 25 years of planning and 5 years of building.
Ukraine is defending itself and just before Trump, US of America put a lot of pressure on my country germany and the europeian union to stop doing business with Russia. Now Elon Musk, the richecst person on the planet and part of US of America is interfering with his system, which gives him A LOT more power than a single human and non gov should have in a WAR which is not his probably due to some indirect garbage between him and the current US of America Gov. While the EU is paying for it. And i do not use anything Musk. Musk has only direct negative impact on my life, no posive one. He used his money to buy twitter because he couldn't shut up and then leveraged it to manipulate and allow manipulation in our elections in germany (search for Elon Musk and AfD). He is potentially poisening our atmosphwere with his rocket launches. And in general, I do care about fellow human beings and i'm pissed in their names for all the people he is responsible for being killed (after all he is also responsible apparently for all the invention of the companies he invested in eh?).
•
Why does EU rely on a system built by a private person? Where is EU's innovation? Oh wait, we are busy with bottle caps, stays together like family lmao https://x.com/moritzkremb/status/2107021822155985254 Where is Germany's nuclear power plants? Where is Germany's industry? Why is Germany axing its own legs and then crying about it? Why did Germany laugh when Trump complained about over reliance on Russian gas? Why is Germany predicted to not have enough gas this January? Why is Germany fucking up the middle class with more and more taxes? All that tax, yet almost nothing to show for. Keine geld!! Economy going to shit. People taking sick days like candy. More people dying to heat than gun violence in USA. Hours of notary to open a company. Effing europoors and you come to complain... PS: Statistically, when I walk on the streets, every 4 German I meet, there's one nazi (as per your definition I would strongly assume). Look inside first.
He's actively holding the program back at this point. Top engineers in this industry are increasingly reluctant to join a company with a such a toxic culture and public reputation tainted by musk.
•
The top engineers are already there. The top engineers care more about engineering than politics. Source: Everyone else in SpaceXs rearview mirror - If the top engineers were elsewhere they would be ahead
It costs less, but it is not free. The stages need to be designed to come back and that adds weight. Additionally you need some fuel, it is not all air breaking. And every bit of weight is really bad, because of the rocket equation. Without internal figures no one can say what is ultimately financially better. Especially now that the development is a sunken cost.
•
Yes, they should just parachute people out of planes, why reuse them thousands of times, carrying that extra fuel to land, they could go another few hundred miles. The point is the ship and rockets are expensive vs fuel. Fly a Starship 100 times the cost is amortised over the flights and fuel+bit of refurb maintenance is tiny.
SpaceX below $1T is criminally undervalued. Launch itself isn't super profitable and doesn't have a very big TAM, especially if you carefully treat the TAM as a present value and discount future cash flows. Also, at least by my personal guesswork, Starlink alone shouldn't get close to a $1 trillion valuation. It seems like the current valuation is based on people's guesses about the likelihood that space data centers pan out in a big way.
•
> It seems like the current valuation is based on people's guesses about the likelihood that space data centers pan out in a big way The Starship program is one of - if not the - biggest risks here. Making starship work could bring the launch cost down far enough to derisk that whole program, and today just made it a lot less risky
> 1) Anthropic because Elon Musk bought too much Compute and doesn't need it for his own AI proudct. The Grok models and products also use the compute in SpaceX's data centers. It only makes sense to provide that excess compute to others such as Anthropic that don't own any, and that is worth tens of billions a quarter. > In parallel Neoclouds are building up the same compute and its more like a negative sign that they got lucky It is not the same. You can ask any chatbot, how many GPUs do the neoclouds have over SpaceX in their data centers? Then: > 2) ? I don't understand what you mean. Are we now talking about Datacenters for others or the space thing? Both. The point being that they (SpaceX) are already quickly building new ones on land codenamed "Gun Range" and "Spam" and are the only ones that can launch and connect all of them via Starlink (if they eventually launch new ones into space) and serve both themselves and new customers. > Amazon Leo is an alternative. But for sure Space-X started a race to the bottom (china, blue origin and co) so they have to start moving and use their first mover advantage. Amazon Leo is not even generally available. So that doesn't even count. > My point is, that Space-X is already responsible for the most amount of payload which gets send into space. We as a whole planet don't have that much payload and Space-X made it alot cheaper to send payload up. So what happens when the neoclouds are not able to build data centers on land anymore due to legislation that prohibits more of them getting built [0] and ultimately they get paused? Most of the neoclouds are already sold out and cannot build more of them and have deadlines on these loans with interest on them. Maybe the compute has to be deployed somewhere else in the long term.... > So were is the 1 Trillion evaluation? Btw. its currently at 1.89T Exactly. It if goes lower than 1T it is cheap. This is not even pricing in the building of their own semiconductor fabricator (Terafab). [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/nov/04/datacenters-midterm-elections
•
If you start building Datacenters up in space, you need to send A LOT of Starships up there for MONTH to get ONE normal avg size GPU based DC in Space. This DC can then poisen our atmopshwere btw. and burns up limited resources on our own planet. They don't need the compute because their product Grok is not competitive. They don't use the compute to make Grok better because?! Amazon Leo will be though. Space-X has a first mover advantage, what did Tesla do with it?
I'm still not really convinced this is better than a space-shuttle style landing. Seems like the same design principles that goes into Starship could create a version with more aerodynamic surface. Is the idea that Starhship will be considered safe enough for human crews?
•
Was Space Shuttle safe enough for human crews? Space Shuttle was a compromised design from the beginning. They originally wanted the Space Shuttle booster to also have wings and return to launch site (with a crew!). But they couldn't afford to develop two new vehicles, so they compromised by making the external tank as cheap as possible and adding solid rockets (which led to the Challenger disaster). But their biggest mistake was having the engines on the orbiter (so they could be recovered) but not the fuel tank. That meant the orbiter had to hang on the side of the external tank, which made it vulnerable to foam strikes (leading to the Columbia disaster). Landing with wings is aesthetically pleasing (compared to tower catches) but consider the waste: You have to boost the weight of the wings, landing gear, etc. all the way to orbit and then bring it all the way back. It's much more efficient to just bring fuel and use that for landing. And if your guidance is accurate enough, a pinpoint landing means you can land on the launch tower and not worry about landing legs.
•
Do you think Space Shuttle landing is equivalent because you like all the extra weight and complexity of a landing gear, or because you like having to build a giant runway?
•
Unnecessarily snarky but 100% correct! Of course, being able to land on runways gave the Space Shuttle more choices for emergency landings than needing a chopsticks catcher. That said, the Space Shuttle holds records for the most humans killed in spaceflight, and the most expensive cost per kilogram to LEO.
•
You don’t want it more aerodynamic
Do we know what sea life just died as the booster exploded? What are the impacts to the Texas Gulf when a booster detonates into the ocean?
•
idk, i'll take a look after i finish eating my steak dinner
"Slightly low on fuel." If I understand correctly, the margin was tight enough not to take the risk of damaging the tower.
•
They need another cheaper tower just for catching. Much less mass when landing.
•
The existing towers can only handle empty ships & boosters. The tower stacks them, then they’re fueled. A catch-only tower would avoid some cladding and the propellant loading lines, but it would still need a deluge system and a QD arm to replace any remaining propellant with inert gas. At that point you might as well pay a little more and get a fully capable tower.
LinkedIn, Monster take down over 1000 fake job postings after CBC investigation (cbc.ca)
•
Only 50,000,000 more to go!
I never got a job in 15 years applying on LinkedIn
•
My last 4 jobs were all LinkedIn; but the last was 8y ago. They were all Apply Now. I clicked. Provided a few things. Had an interview within a few days and the offer a day or two later. It was absolutely lovely compared to Monster or ZipRecuiter or CareerBuilder or whatever was popular at the time. Now the only Apply Now links appear to be resume harvesters or agencies reposting other open reqs.
Why isn't there, like, a website that is like Amazon but not a scam, and people actually use? Actually I know many of these, but nobody talks about them and everyone only talks about Amazon - why is that?
•
The logic of profit turns everything towards allowing scammers. eBay, Etsy, and many more have started out with high minded marketplaces of trust before they succumbed to the reality that crap shovelers are lucrative.
I don't consider selling cheap junk as a scam. To me its more an indicator of what consumers want and are willing to pay for. If we wanted better quality stuff and weren't willing to buy cheap crap they would stop selling it or they'd go out of business. These businesses haven't shifted from selling high quality products to junk quietly and without lowering prices. We all know the quality, how is that a scam?
•
I question that people truly want this cheap throwaway garbage. Just look at all the seasonal produced use once stuff (think Easter, Halloween, xmas, etc.) that people buy because they are cheap and do it for a moment, the. They go into the bin. When I was young such decoration was previous, cherished and stored for next season. Over time it grew. Now everyone buys some plastic spiderweb because it's cheap and the neighbors down street have deco up as well. Mountains or crap.
I think, though I have no way to prove it, that the "Amazon's Choice" is also a "scam"-like moniker. In many of the electronic products I come across, it is often a poorly reviewed product compared to many other options, making me think it is the one that Amazon profits from the most.
•
Hey, it's Amazon choice. Whatever positive attributes you associate with the term is up to you. Treat is as any sticker a shop puts onto a product. Its the equivalent to Costco or Walmart home brand.
Most online job listings these days are fake.
•
I honestly don't think so, at least not in the scammy way most people think. Most of them are simply deprioritized and situationally used. Most companies with more than 50 employees (and less than 5,000 let's say) want something more like a pipeline. They often have some interchangeable work and might decide to hire 3 SWEs. So they interview a pool and eventually fill the 3 roles. But why take down the listing? When they post they get 1,000 resumes instantly, but every week they get 100 new ones. So if they decide to hire again they just cull the top 50 most recent and take a look. You could be the best person in the world but if you are resume 51, you are ignored. AI (on both sides) and hiring manager laziness has made lucky timing the most important factor for any hiring chance.
The 'europoors' rants reflect an American insecurity (davekeating.substack.com)
> Doubling or tripling my salary and halving my tax burden sounds lovely. If you're going to be in a major tech hub in USA, your tax burden definitely won't be anywhere close to half.
•
Except for Seattle/Bellevue.
My American brain literally can't comprehend how one could consider themselves wealthy without owning their home. The permeance and stability it affords you is the very definition of wealth as I understand it. The American dream is deeply ingrained in our phyche, the housing crisis is a deep existential crisis for us. Most Americans would find your belief politically offensive and yes very European lol.
•
> My American brain literally can't comprehend how one could consider themselves wealthy without owning their home Net assets. If rents are kept at a reasonably low value one can invest the rest and become wealthy enough (at least in purchasing power terms). > The permeance and stability it affords you is the very definition of wealth as I understand it. In places where eviction is basically impossible, it's possible to have an even higher stability renting than owning in the US, because there's no chance that you can't afford paying property taxes if your fortunes go bad.
>[...] feel like their only hope is war with Russia What? Russias threats to Europe is not the source of hope for anyone.
•
Oh please you just moved the goal posts to "the" Ukraine and now claim Russia is attacking Europe. Unless you live in an ex-soviet buffer state rich in mineral resources and arable land I think you're gonna be ok.
But I've been an American for decades. I _KNOW_ how foreigners talk about USA. * Big portions of our meals? Check. If some European were taking pictures or talking up the SuperSize meal at McDonalds then yeah, that's "normal". * Mega-Highways? Check. Our roads are a marvel to everyone (please ignore our lack of public transit. But at least we have highways). Both the shear size and scale, not just of the roads but also of our cars. * Gun Ranges? Yeah, that's normal depending on which culture they came from. Some people like hunting and gun ranges. * Size of the country? (2 hour drive is just one state over). Big road trips? Yeah. Etc. etc. I already KNOW what foreigners think of my country. But freaking air conditioning? No. Even poor Filipinos have air conditioning and aren't really wow'd by it these days. Certainly not in 2026. Filipinos will talk about maybe the "new air con bus" (in contrast to the Jeepny they used to take), but that's about how the Philippines has improved... a point of pride for the Filipinos and not an item of foreign wonder when visiting the USA. If there's wonder or exasperation, its actually a negative. Filipinos find the air conditioning settings way too cold here in the USA to the point of annoyance. They're not "happy" about it like how it happens in these meme videos. If someone's skin is used to 80F, 90F or higher temperatures, sitting in 68F all the time is downright uncomfortable. Europeans? Japanese? Koreans? They're even richer than Filipinos. They aren't going to be wow'd by this at all. They already have access to air conditioning, maybe not quite as much as us Americans but its not really a point of exasperation or wonder.
•
>> Filipinos find the air conditioning settings way too cold here in the USA to the point of annoyance As European I find AC settings ridiculously low. It's summer, why should I carry a hoodie just for a bus ride?
A lot of the time individuals in Europe literally don’t have air conditioning. We were in Germany and Italy during a heatwave this summer. In Munich I managed to find a hotel with aircon, in Italy I didn’t. Massive museums in Munich don’t have air conditioning. We visited a friend who lives in a small town in Bavaria. He doesn’t have air conditioning, neither do any of his neighbors. Keep in mind that the heatwave hit like 100 degrees. My European colleagues were visibly exhausted by the heat in our meetings because, again, they don’t have air conditioning. I’m not saying it’s a technology that’s foreign to the continent, obviously not. I don’t know if this wonder was genuine (I didn’t see that, I mostly saw a lot of Americans expressing contempt of Europeans for not having aircon). But A LOT of places you’d expect to have air conditioning don’t have it, and a LOT of homes don’t have it. It’s not that they simply leave it off in 100 degree heat. Arguably because they simply haven’t needed it until the last few years. But the fact remains.
•
You know why the AC is not common in residential buildings? Because they are build with stones and concrete and can handle a few days of heat during the summer. Close the windows and curtains during the day and let fresh air at night and you'll be fine during the summer in Germany.
A family tree of software job titles (zwischenzugs.com)
Software engineers keep software on the tracks like train engineers keep the train on the tracks. Nobody thinks the train engineer built the train...
•
We should train engineers regardless.
•
Do you think the "engineer" in software engineer is etymologically closer to train engineer than it is to electrical/mechanical/civil engineer? I don't think so.
Ops has heaps of accidental complexity that has little to do with the software that was made. That’s why many devs dislike ops work.
•
What makes you say it's accidental?
Lovable apps expose passport details and more than 200K private messages (crissyfield.de)
Igor here, Head of Security at Lovable. Thanks to the Crissy Field team for their work. The root cause in these apps was insufficent Row-Level Security, which is exactly what our scanning is built to catch. We scan every app automatically before publish and offer a deeper SAST scan, both free for all users. When we flag findings, users can select “Fix” and Lovable will help resolve them. They can also enable auto-fix, which resolves security findings in the background, and block publishing entirely when there are critical findings. When an app has end users, security is a key part of the product. That’s why we keep investing in making security tools better and easier to use, taking on as much of the security load as we can and fixing more issues automatically. I personally believe that making security accessible is what leads to making software accessible. We’re committed to both. You can read more about our approach: https://lovable.dev/blog/find-it-fix-it-ship-it
•
You need a framework for sensitive data collection/usage. Auto-fix does not seem like a comprehensive approach.
•
So the approach is: 1. Blame the user because they didn't verify the app they built on your infrastructure meets the most basic requirements? 2. Then provide a tool that offers no guarantees and no definitions of what critical vs non-critical means. 3. And put the extra onus on users to run a "deep" scan when they intuit (somehow?) that there might be problems for which there is no hint? 4. All while telling users that critical issues are really bad but normal issues are... ok? I have no idea what they are from your writeup. 5. While selling better security for business and even better security for enterprise. Because security for everyone else isn't important!? Is this supposed to be a roadmap to security antipatterns? It's so interesting how you've created a nice ecosystem where you're not responsible for the security problems but at the same time your users are meant to trust you to take care of that. We really need to change the laws around this.
How are you going to make sure that none of the data that escaped your control is going to be mis-used? Have you made an inventory of all of the places where the data ended up? Have all parties that ended up with copies confirmed the copies are destroyed and had not been passed on? Have you reported an inadvertent disclosure to the DPA?
•
Isn't Lovable in this case more analogous to a consultancy to whom customers outsourced their website builds — meaning the customers, not Lovable are responsible for these actions? On a larger note, and not at all to downplay the seriousness of this breach, but this feels like the kind of growing pain we're going to continue going through as we move to an AI-driven world. Who's responsible for the work of the AI? In this case, I think it's pretty cut and dry, since Lovable sells a service that _happens_ to be powered by AI (it could just as easily have been done by an outsourced team instead). But as AI gains more agency, it's going to become less and less clear…
•
Those are all good questions, I think the customers' perception is that they have outsourced this but obviously they too have a responsibility (for instance: to do due diligence on the parties they do business with to make sure that they are observing their duties as controllers). One thing is certain: the data subjects are without blame and their interests have been violated substantially, the question really is what else happened to the data and that is something that nobody knows right now. But if it is true that it ended up on common crawl then that would be quite a big problem. The controller/processor relationship is very clearly described as part of the GDPR and there is little doubt in my mind that both of these parties jointly and separately carry responsibility here.
•
To clarify: no PII leaked from Lovable apps ended up in Common Crawl. Common Crawl was used solely to identify Lovable apps—not to retrieve leaked data. It does not store XHR responses, which are how data is retrieved from Supabase. Any data fetched during the analysis was deleted long ago, though you’ll have to take my word for that. Only metadata was retained. That said, I fully agree that no one can say for certain whether anyone else collected this data or what happened to it afterward.
•
Ok. One commenter in this thread was adamant that that was the case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50501973 you may want to clarify this there as well.
•
If the consultancy delivers vulnerable software to the customer, the customer would most likely sue the consultancy for any damages they incurred. Especially if there is a maintenance contract, where the consultancy handles any security upgrades etc that are necessary.
> the people affected here are end users who did not action provided findings. 7500 site operators failing to "action provided findings" seems like a systematic failure on your part and you should accept more responsibility for it. I'm guessing users find the security warnings unclear, confusing, or meaningless. Don't allow users to publish apps if you know they leak private data. Work on educating users and make the apps be built securely the first time.
•
Surprisingly, for many users it's the fear that the fix will break production. And no matter how good are findings or warnings, or modals blocking publish, some apps will still do it. And that's why I believe auto-fix will solve a lot of problems in this space. We are now training our auto-fix to be very considerate and avoid breaking changes, trace back to user prompts and intent. The goals is to make it widely adopted and one day (soon!) turn on by default.
•
Seriously?
•
Was my reaction then I remembered the world of tech as it currently is and was both not surprised and yet still disappointed. This is the new future, I'm just not sure I want to be part of it.
Honest question: how would you determine how much data is reasonable to download and inspect while remaining "white hat"? Are you advocating they stop at a single record, since that's enough to prove that a vulnerability exists? Or that OP downloaded _more_ than necessary and should have stopped earlier (but not at the first instance)? Another question: I'm not sure if you noticed, but he obtained it from a 3rd party called Common Crawl ( https://commoncrawl.org/ ) which "maintains a free, open repository of web crawl data that can be used by anyone." Doesn't this imply the damage is already done, since the data's been made available to _anyone_ at this point? Put another way, since it's been put on Common Crawl, which presumably follows rules about what to scrape, hasn't Lovable effectively published this data?
•
To clarify: no PII leaked from Lovable apps ended up in Common Crawl. Common Crawl was used solely to identify Lovable apps—not to retrieve leaked data. It does not store XHR responses, which are how data is retrieved from Supabase. (Copied from another comment of mine.)
I think you missed that they only pulled the first page of paginated results. The opposite of exfiltration.
•
Of 10K+ tables...
Will we put data centers in space? (forethought.org)
•
I couldn't find a single instance of "upgrade", "recover", or "recycle" in there. What happens if a major advancement renders all the GPUs obsolete? How can they upgrade the hardware and resell the old hardware? Are they just going to vaporize all the gear and precious metals? IDK, the whole thing seems silly at the current state of space logistics.. For these and many more reasons. It's popular mechanics/science levels of practical fantasy, but somehow now those stories end up swirling around the Internet and never flush. Would have been like having 5 newspaper articles about space elevators every month for years.
•
It will definitely happen and when it happens, HN will deny it happened, just like self-driving cars.
Wind, waves, nuclear. You don't have to pack your energy generator into the same package where your compute would go, for laughably little energy. You can have a single cable go between a huge power plant and the data center.
•
A huge cable to the North Pole or to Antarctica would be way too expensive. Also... nuclear? Please don't be silly.
Why are you ignoring all of the costs of actually being in orbit here? A normal satellite runs something similar to 1U worth of computer and costs roughly what you quoted in total...
•
Why are you guys rehashing the exact calculations that were made in the article? The article is all about these calculations, and they give ranges of values for each cost to see the the possible price points for everything in order to make it worthwhile. They take all of the bits you guys are talking about into account in the article. You might disagree with some of the numbers, I guess, but that doesn't seem to be what you guys are talking about.
Or you know, just have tpus with liquid cooling in huge racks, with optical cables or whatever. We can put a shitton of them into a warehouse sized space, and we have basically infinite energy to power and cool it, with physical connection to the internet for ultra fast speeds! (Sorry, the snark is not directed at you)
•
The problem is that building the physical DCs is a cost problem not just in terms of energy availability (it’s not infinite) but also politics and legal regulations. Ignoring that is why it makes the space idea seem silly but it’s a real one
 Top