panick21_

Take 'first flight' with a massive grain of salt. And the 'return to flight' with a smaller amount.

And the issue is that many of these are booked out and have backlog. So even when they return to flight, its years before they can take on new contract.

And many of them can't fly many of the required missions for NASA or DoD anyway.

Nova has already been renamed Nova Pathfinder and is likely only going to be flown a few times before they will switch to a larger rocket.

Georgist from the beginning did care about other form of rents, like resources.

Land rent-seeking is still incredibly important. Saying all modern problems are from platforms is silly considering that most people spend far more of their budget on their living situation, compared to paying money to apple or google.

And its much easier to switch from apple to google or other platforms.

> of course there was no talk of Geoism when land rents were the main problem

There was the whole time. Who are you talking about?

Who made discussing georgism illigal?

> lesser evil of land rent-seeking

Its crazy to suggests its a lesser evil.

No matter what the truth of that, the 'flying car' is not a product. They didn't commit to selling it. So its pointless to even argue about it.

You could literally buy a fucking van. Much larger volume, much easier to load.

Since when is a fucking roof for storage in your car revolutionary? Its only revolutionary if you are brain-rotted in accepting pickup trucks as the norm.

> It’s like the entire city of Austin. It’s also the entire Bay Area.

Ok, doesn't change my point.

And Musk himself said that geo-fanced self driving isn't self driving.

> HW3 gets a supervised version which is the best they can do with the hardware that they shipped, it’s unfortunate

Its quite literally a scam and it should be viewed as such. Musk said that since like 2017 sold cars where he advertised this feature.

Also, even HW4, current FSD Beta is nowhere near actually self driving or anywhere near that is can independently go out or even make money for you while you work.

So its quite clear that HW4 will not reach that level either, so we just keep kicking that down the road while having essentially scammed all buyers since then and refused them the ability to get their money back at the very least.

And they just moved it back another year in the last call. But sure next year he wont pull the football.

> Apple has a version of Apple Intelligence which is neutered on older devices, presumably because of hardware limitations.

I don't know about Apple, I at least haven't heard about them claiming that the old phones would be able to do some incredible things.

They sold FSD for private cars in cars like 7 years ago, that you can take a small area in Austian doesn't matter.

And people on Hardware 3 should collectively sue, because they will never, ever, ever, ever get FSD fully working on that. But instead of admiting that and paying people back (if they want) they continue to release small updates to pretendent its still possible. Musk is known for not giving a shit of supporting old shit, he looks at only the future always.

Yes pro-tech and pro-capitalist means that you have to outright support the AfD in Germany, Trump in the US and Restore in Britain right?

Because those ultra far right wing parties really care about science and long term technology development. They also super love capitalism. I mean ignore that they want to destroy free trade, destroy the international order, dismantle equality before the law that is the bases of capitalist labor markets, that they are incredibly and openly corrupt and make it clear that contracts are given out based on loyalty rather then any serious evaluation of technical quality.

The far right wants a old school hierarchical society, based on loyalty and traditional values, not capitalism. Capitalism is literally what has opposed this world view for 100s of years.

The list goes on, if you actually believe that these people are pro-tech, pro-capitalism you are fucking delusional.

Ok, he outright supports the AfD in Germany. A party that has literal known Nazis in it. And no this isn't debatable, its outright facts.

He is ultra far right wing and he did the salute as a 'joke', but even if you want to ignore that and argue it away, his support of AfD is 1000X worse. He actually supports a party that literally wants to overthrow German democracy like the actual Nazi party did historically.

He also associated and support far-right wing skinheads in Britain and moved from the far-right reform to the even further far ultra right 'Restore' party in Britain.

I don't know how anybody can justify unless they themselves are a far right extremist.

Ok, he outright supports the AfD in Germany. A party that has literal known Nazis in it. And no this isn't debatable, its outright facts.

He is ultra far right wing and he did the salute as a 'joke', but even if you want to ignore that, his support of AfD is 1000X worse.

He also associated and support far-right wing skinheads in Britain and moved from the far-right reform to the even further far ultra right 'Restore' party in Britain.

I don't know how anybody can justify unless they themselves are a far right extremist.

Ok, he outright supports the AfD in Germany. A party that has literal known Nazis in it. And no this isn't debatable, its outright facts.

He is ultra far right wing and he did the salute as a 'joke', but even if you want to ignore that, his support of AfD is 1000X worse.

He also associated and support far-right wing skinheads in Britain and moved from the far-right reform to the even further far ultra right 'Restore' party in Britain.

I don't know how anybody can justify unless they themselves are a far right extremist.

> He gets plenty of shit for it and lost popularity with anyone that cares about the matter.

Maybe among well-informed people who closely follow immigration policy, but not necessarily among the broader Conservative base.

This illustrates my point: much of the political debate about immigration is driven by perceptions rather than actual policy outcomes. Johnson talked about restricting immigration, which was popular with his base, but many voters had little understanding of what his government was actually doing. Literally just anti-immigration vibes.

And the political scandals that ultimately brought him down were largely unrelated to immigration. And he would have been the best for the Tories to have a chance in the election.

> By which metrics that they should all care about has it been doing well for people of the existing nations in europe?

Nice attempt at shifting the goalposts while not so subtly implying that immigration is responsible for all these other issues.

That wasn't the argument. The argument was about whether anti-immigration sentiment and political support for anti-immigration politicians actually correlate with immigration levels and policy outcomes.

> I listed some examples of ones that aren't so great in an earlier comment in this comment tree.

You mean the racist rants based on completely made up stuff or serious misinterpretation of a few data-points while completely ignoring the much more important much more actual relevant issues?

Yeah your not thin skinned at all!

> Not everyone is as bigoted and unimaginative as you.

My poor little victim.

We could even shock invest in railways and bikes and restrict all cars.