kadenshep

I don't see anything that doesn't meet those requirements.

but otherwise I don't see a good use for it for properly designed and new projects.

What's your definition of properly designed projects?

It definitely affects labor productivity.

That study doesn't even remotely support what you said. If that's all you can find you're basically just making stuff up.

I hope so, perfectly happy to have it go over my head.

reliably causes "liberal" and atheistic feelings

I'm sorry, where are you getting this from? That seems contradictory to common knowledge in this subject, and if you want to do a silly thing like label certain behaviors "liberal" or "conservative" in the context of U.S. politics.

Seems like a really fragile attitude to take when you're the head of a company.

there are plenty of ACH/SWIFT transfers that are actually just people moving money from account to account or institution to institution too, rather than actual inter-party transactions.

You're transferring banking systems/locations. That affects money supply, transfer fee's, lending, etc. It definitely has an economic impact, far larger than transferring bitcoins around.

...for orbital launches, which is quite literally what 99% of these rockets have been used for. Which also is exactly what we are talking about.

It's only confusing if you're wanting to be disingenuous.

Yes, it wasn't built by ULA.

The Atlas V was developed by Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services

Honestly just stop.

You could maybe, I dunno, click on the wikipedia link and read it.

the Delta and Long March families are very large and very old and if you count the earliest attempts of governments to build ICBMs you get reliability figures worse than SpaceX.

"If you do this thing that you didn't do, you get worse figures."

Um, okay.

You can click on each rocket and look at the launch history. I am again, done with this conversation because of how disingenuous you are willing to be.

Counting 'family' legacy back to ICBMs is ludicrous.

I didn't do that and you know it. Those are all rockets used in orbital payload missions. All of them have been used within the last 5 years.

I used some inline JS for this table here:

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

SpaceX's failure rate is in line with industry norms.

SpaceX's 93% launch success rate is still below average for ALL launches (94-95%), and has a higher incident rate than its "competitors" in any form. That's what was asked. You don't need to apologize for SpaceX.

Some of the rockets in your "thorough" have radically different missions, specifications, and costs than the type of rockets we're discussing. Let's talk about what we're actually comparing. Orbital launch rockets actually beat "industry" averages by a signification margin. And let's talk about failures, unrecoverable ones.

* Altas V (actually built by Lockheed Martin, not ULA): 98% successful launch rate.

* Delta (entire family): 99% success rate across the ENTIRE family.

* H-IIA: 98% success rate

* Araine 5: 98% success rate.

* Long March (entire family): 98-99% success rate.

See a pattern? All of the above families have mission histories of 100+ launches.

the author here attributes nonconformities at all three EELV contractors — including ULA and Aerojet Rocketdyne — to SpaceX

No they didn't. Are you just purposefully misreading the article?

The first is an evaluation of quality controls among launch-vehicle suppliers to the military space program. at contractor sites.

Beyond reading comprehension differences, I am not interested in willfully misrepresenting basic facts as some sort of intellectual jerk off exercise. SpaceX is below the industry average and way below the launch success average for the type of work they're doing. That's what the OP asked.

Okay how does that negate the other payload losses that SpaceX has had, with only half the number of launches as its competitor? SpaceX has 61 launches according to this: http://www.spacex.com/missions

You've totally missed the point.

Haha, and then you edited your comment to attack the source. Honestly the person could have been North Korea's super extra special space dictator and it wouldn't change the reality that SpaceX has a higher incident rate than comparable companies. Which is what OP basically asked.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/01/15/doubts...

I googled it for you.

"Zuma" satellite is the third payload sitting on a Falcon 9 that has been lost in four years. By way of comparison, United Launch Alliance, SpaceX's sole competitor in the military launch business, hasn't lost a single payload in 12 years and 124 missions.

two recent government reports raise questions bearing upon the reliability of SpaceX products and processes. The first is an evaluation of quality controls among launch-vehicle suppliers to the military space program. That report, prepared by the defense department's Inspector General and dated December 20, found 181 deviations from quality standards at contractor sites. Over a third were "major nonconformities," meaning deviations that might contribute to a failure in quality controls.

I edited my comment to remove the statement "Stop blaming people for a system they didn't choose." I'm sorry you read it. It was unnecessary and you're right, you're not really victim blaming.

I got frustrated at face value because increasing wages would do more to alleviate a lot of American's financial woe's -- now and later -- than (rightfully) helping to educate Americans about investing money. You're right, even small bouts of investment can net large gains in the future. I jumped the gun and took it as "if you just stopped being dumb with money everything would be better!"

Wage increases are not only largely (historically) objectively justifiable, but wage increases would be more consistent and easier to "implement" than educating an entire populace in a better manner. There would also be the enormous task of changing purchasing habits. We know that even when people understand "doing X is bad for future results", that doesn't mean they'll make the more rational choice.

Neither perspective is exclusive. We can increase wages and we should also invest in educating Americans about sound financial practices. But wage increases can happen now, would be immediately beneficial to everyone, while also making it easier to invest and take on the risks associated with investing.

You would have to show that people are not investing because they have no extra money and not that they are choosing to use their money now instead of investing.

We know they don't have enough money to invest. Average income + average cost of living < amount needed to safely invest.

We've quite literally known about if for years on a national scale. He doesn't have to show anything.

There's an HN thread that links to the source article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17549797

This is one of the subjects I wish developers (of all persuasions) would consistently put pressure on local representatives; don't let these sales to voting companies just happen without pushback.

We can't expect representatives or legislatures to be technically adept at all things (or anything for that matter). The fact that this has all gone down over the last couple of years without much of a fuss from our industry is shameful. We get riled up over corporate battles, which tech stack is the best, but when it comes to protecting the people's sovereignty and everyone's rights, the silence from our industry as a whole, across all strata, is deafening. We should be angry. We should be loud. It should be a subject that comes up at least once a month at meet ups and happy hours. But like the rest of the populace, we've been silent. A good portion of us (developers) have been just as ignorant about acquisitions and policies surrounding voting machines as the general populace.

If there is one thing that you should write or call your representatives about (local, state, and federal), just by virtue of your profession and interests, it needs to be about e-voting. All developers have what I believe is an ethical duty to our country to be educated about this subject and to make sure we're disseminating accurate and helpful information to our representatives, our friends, our neighbors, and our families.

Here's some helpful links to get you started if you've never broached this subject, need a refresher, or just want to see how you can help out:

* https://trustthevote.org/

* https://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting

* https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/audit-better-faster-ch...

* https://www.eff.org/wp/accessibility-and-auditability-electr...

I firmly believe that we should stick with pen and paper. However, I think that battle is already lost. We need to secure what governments/people want to use and we need to do our part to make sure our representatives/voting boards are making informed choices about which systems they'll be deploying in the field.

Educate yourself and contact your representatives. Do your part for our democracy.

Wouldn't the correct thing to do in that case then would be to wholesale delete pro/anti musk threads that specifically revolve around him as a CEO?

Right now it seems like current moderation tactics are encouraging a "lie hard and fast" mode, so the truth can't catch up -- so to speak. Essentially the moderation policy is acting as a floodgate that only closes when perspectives that negate the "pro" side of things are brought into play.

This is apparent in what was allowed to be posted without question and in how you, intentionally or not, only replied to anti-musk threads. There were at least 4 threads, that I just looked at now at the time of this post, that were both not flagged by the community nor set straight from a moderator that were purely composed of vague personal attacks (it would have been better if they had just been forthright with it).

I understand that HN has limited resources and you clearly value the integrity of this forum, I just think certain perspectives unfairly caught your attention more than they should have.

People who weren't online in an earlier time should probably refrain from making statements about how it was different

But some of their and your facile generalizations about the past are still rather amusing.

Would you care to contextualize these statements in a manner that upon first, second, or third reading doesn't qualify as assumptions and/or general grand standing?

I think your view point is directly addressed in the article. Are you saying I was not around during the time periods discussed?

Also you have a rather lengthy response but most of it is just vague dismissals based on aggressive assumptions. Care to get into specifics?

There is a narrative that things like gun control, abortion, etc are subjective subjects. They're really not. Being disingenuous (which is really pervasive in American politics) or taking nonconstructive stances to support a narrative does not make certain view points or stances subjective, despite some people's best efforts to control rhetoric surrounding these conversations.

All opinions are not equal and not all opinions deserve the same stage time. Especially when those opinions and view points are not based on any data but rather ideological motivations.

I think a lot of people who actively moderate truly public forums/media channels understand this. Not doing anything is the worst thing you can do. At this point in my online life, claiming that "if you ignore them they'll go away" paints you as a co-conspirator/pseudo-supporter or just foolishly naive in my mind.

there has always been a myth about the time and place where things were more innocent, when trolling was all in good fun.

And it IS a myth. It's a do nothing attitude and it's easy to take when it doesn't affect you personally. Summed up perfectly by the very next statement in the article:

But what everyone really remembers about these proverbial times isn’t their purity. It’s how they didn’t see the big deal back then. They remember how they felt a sense of permission, a belief that it was all okay. But that was only true for those who were like them, who thought exactly like they did.

It was refreshing to see this view point espoused on a rather large technology site.

It's not really subjective, unless you're going to go down the rabbit hole of "everything" being subjective making any discussion around this matter pointless.

when they don't agree with your groups solutions on most important issues.

No, it's typically done when there are well-understood motivations behind people's opinions and the negative effects such opinions have when they make the status quo.

Or, it's neither of those things. Scott Adams is just being contrarian, as per usual.

People are more rational when the cost to them of being irrational is larger.

This was directly negated in the article.

nothing can redeem it and it's off topic on Hacker News.

That seems largely contradictory to the hacker ethos, no?