It was for a 1000, doubling every day of non-payment, for many months now. Which is how it reached the ridiculous amounts, and also how any amount you see is quickly outdated because it doubles every day.
Yeah, that's what I said.
That's 100 free miles a week. Sure, most people will need to charge it anyway, but that's still 100 free miles a week.
But I don't think it's a good idea. It would be more efficient to just put the same solar panels in your roof, where they don't contribute to the car's weight, don't force your to park in sunlight instead of indoor parking or garage, and whose output can be used for charging the car OR for anything else as needed.
All in all, the film makers had many things they could choose to make the effect look plausible, but they didn't.
You can't be pardoned from a lawsuit. This is not a criminal case, just Musk getting sued, which you can't get out of with a pardon.
His lawyers were there, and so the defense party was there. He wasn't required to be there, contrary to what the post tries to imply.
No, because he wasn't required to show up. The defense was required to show up, and it did, as Musk's lawyers were present. The post is just clickbait trying to make you think he was required to show up.
And it's a lawsuit, not a criminal charge, so no jail time is in the cards, sadly, no matter how hard he loses.
His lawyers showed up, which fulfills "all parties must be present", as the defense was present.
It's clickbait, Musk wasn't required to show up personally.
You could make an argument that there was some kind of huge spinning gyroscope reaction wheel system on that axis which projected the explosion that way.
But we all know there wasn't.
@RemindMe @RemindMe@programming.dev 15 years, tell this guy he's wrong
It was fine in Mr Robot.
That's just confirmation bias. You assume it's true because it makes sense given other things you know.
If I make up a fact that you are a technology enthusiast, people can assume it's true, you are using Lemmy, it makes sense. And it might be true, but it doesn't change the fact I completely made it up.
He was asked what they are working on now that they released Windows 10. He said they are still working on Windows 10 as it's the last (latest) release of Windows and still being developed. Yes he could have worded it better.
And even that engineer only said "last" to mean "latest", which is obvious from context, but why let that get in the way of clickbaity articles.
So you are advocating for slowing down the work on Android, or for keeping the pace the same but witholding the updates for longer before a release? Or something else?
Usually uprooting your life and moving to another country implies a job change. At least that's how I read the comment.
There is an important fact about the Space Shuttle: it doesn't exist anymore. Even if it was cheaper - which it wasn't - it wouldn't have meant much today, because today all other existing options are much more expensive. I'm comparing options we have today, and more importantly comparing to the option SpaceX moved the government off of.
If NASA brings back the space shuttle and it's cheaper than SpaceX then amazing, let's go. But they didn't (because it wouldn't have been cheaper).
A single launch of a Boeing rocket costs as much as the entire R&D for SpaceX rockets. Launches that cost $5 billion with Boeing, cost tens of millions with SpaceX. I can absolutely agree with you that SpaceX is wasting some of the money given to them. But the amount of taxpayer money spent on launches has been massively reduced by them providing an orders of magnitude cheaper and more reliable option.
There is definitely an argument to be made that they don't deserve the money, but in the grand scheme of government spending, they have very much reduced it compared to the traditional launch providers.
And their rockets still have capabilities that no other launch provider has achieved yet. Boeing still wastes all their rockets by making them single use, when SpaceX uses the same rocket many times.
The traditional satellite internet is slow and high latency. With the Starlink approach, it is indeed an issue that the satellites need to be continuously replaced, but it does provide a superior service to the user, and combined with SpaceX often launching them "almost free" by piggybacking on free space around their customer's payloads and not having to pay anyone for launches otherwise, it does come out cheaper than the old satellite internet.
But that's just the technology. The fact Musk is anywhere near that project makes Starlink a liability.