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.
If the heat shield holds up then this changes everything. Next step is double catch and re-flying the same ships and catching again, then payloads to orbit become significantly cheaper opening a new era in space flight.
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.
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.
Or use SuperHeavy to launch non-reusable second stage and fueled Moon module of different design. After all SuperHeavy doesn’t have to be used exclusively for Starship.
Only for going to the Moon or Mars. As a launch system, Starship will still be a phenomenal success even if they struggle with fuel transfer, which is really an entirely different problem.
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.
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.
Nothing is simple in zero g. All our industrial processes have baked in assumption about gravity (and most also about the composition and pressure of surrounding air).
The average person isn't supposed to care, they won't be switching models to prompt for the best television for under $1000. But for professionals they should have some sort of understanding of these things.
Terrible naming, unless the atomic weight is some indication of size? When is Uranium-235 coming out? Not sure what this model is, is Hydrogen like Sonnet where Carbon is like Opus?
Yes this is why I switched to Go for backend, much faster compiling and performance isn't an issue for the application yes using 100GB+ is just bad tooling.
Not only is the compiler very slow, but maintaining the code is slower too. No single tool is right for everything. To me, Rust is definitely not a general-purpose language. It only makes sense for workloads where the ratio of execution time to dev/compile time is heavily skewed toward running the code.
Nah, compared to other languages, the strictness of Rust makes maintaining codebases a joy. Like, I love Python, but maintaining a large Python codebase is a source of constant anxiety. The Rust compiler actually feels like it has your back.
Why haven't people switched then? Same could be said about Google search, Facebook, X etc. Claude is the de-facto SWE model now, yes you could use an open model but you would always be wondering if Claude would do better, like using Duck Duck or some other Search engine
> Claude is the de-facto SWE model now, yes you could use an open model but you would always be wondering if Claude would do better,
In my testing (incredibly similar workflows, moving around between claude code and cursor), I haven't found that much difference between Sonnet and GLM-5.3/flash.
Sonnet seems lazier, but has better prompt adherence, and is constantly telling me it can't do things, while GLM will just Find A Way to do whatever I've asked for.
I really appreciate being able to see GLM's thinking tokens, as I can head it off quicker. Claude's a little harder to steer, but the integration in Claude code makes it much easier to leave it running on things overnight, which is hard to get working properly in Cursor.
Overall, I'm not sure Anthropic have that much of a moat, in coding particularly. This seems weird to me, as they have so much more usage data that's hard to replicate.
I would wait for 2-3 quarters before investing, it will drop and there will likely be lock-ins to contend with. if growth slows then price could tumble fast.
The stock market is barely distinguishable from a casino at this point (and arguably never has been far from gambling), I have 0 confidence that the horrible business that Anthropic is will be reflected accurately in any way
I feel like the saying "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" has applied my entire life; I have yet to see the stock market behave rationally in my lifetime.
As we all know revenue is the only thing that matters, and not whether they actually, y'know, turn a single red cent of profit! Btw what all the AI bros are conveniently forgetting to comment on is the massive Q3 slowdowns which they conveniently got to keep out of the news cycles.
edit: To clarify, this is a light-hearted continuation about how essentially any claim about the stock market is enactable in some form. And so even the much of generally well-intentioned advise is in fact a claim that the person should be putting their money on, if they truly believe it. I think only claims like "Nobody knows what's going to happen, it's effectively gambling => stay out of the market" come close to being fully self-consistent, but e.g. advising to not buy because the price comes down, or to not short because of volatility both fail this. Markets are funny.
I didn't claim that it was going to go down though.
My only claim was that to profit from shorting it you need to not just be right that it is going to go down, but be able to tolerate the volatility in the interim.
That's a claim about the stock market, how do you enact it?
Note it is not a claim that volatility is definitely going to be high.
Either the volatility must be tolerated and so it can be straddled. Or there's no need to tolerate it, so the shorting is "easy". Of course these are not the only possible outcomes, so I wouldn't recommend anything.
My point is, any claim about what is going to happen is implicitly weighing that information higher over the background. So if one thinks it's worth sharing, then they're claiming insight that they could be staking on.
I think in your claim that is the "tolerate the volatility in the interim" part. Stating this implies that you think that the volatility is going to be higher than the market expects (as otherwise the statement wouldn't contain new information, i.e. it wouldn't be worth stating) so that means you should be willing to take a straddle position to profit from this assumed volatility, as long as the costs associated with assuming such a position are less than the expected profit. If this isn't true, then you may want to aeconsider whether you actually believe that the volatility is going to be high enough to be worth considering.
Now I suppose there are further meta levels, where one can ask and advise to consider the possibility that volatility might be high, even if one doesn't actually regard the chance of volatility to be high themselves. But for that to be a true neutral claim, one should also ask to consider the chance of unexpectedly low probability. So to say "before you short, consider that volatility might be high" is itself a pro-volatility claim, mildly disguised as a hypothetical.
I hope I'm not coming off as too contentious. My principal point is this: any statement reflects underlying sentiments about what's expected to happen, made because those stated expectations deviate from what is commonly understood to happen. That is "delta", which can be monetised if large enough.
> Stating this implies that you think that the volatility is going to be higher than the market expects
No, I'm not trying to imply that.
You don't know what the volatility will be in the interim. You can take a view on whether you think it is likely to be higher or lower than the rest of the market expects but you don't know.
My claim was as simple as "making money shorting requires you not just to be right that it will eventually go down, but that you also tolerate the volatility in the interim". Whatever that volatility may be.
That claim can be true without implying any profitable trade.
The fact that the claim is true isn't evidence that the price will eventually go down.
I don't think either of us really misunderstand each other at the object level, we're just arguing pedantically about the precise statements we've made. (Which, no shade, this is one of my favourite hobbies).
> My principal point is this: any statement reflects underlying sentiments about what's expected to happen
This is a statement about the stock market, how do I trade on this?
My principal point is that it is possible to make statements about a system that are generally true without taking any view at all on the specific future states of that system.
> I don't think either of us really misunderstand each other at the object level, we're just arguing pedantically about the precise statements we've made. (Which, no shade, this is one of my favourite hobbies).
I think I agree. And it indeed takes one to know one ;) That said, I wish to keep going for a bit at the least!
> My principal point is that it is possible to make statements about a system that are generally true without taking any view at all on the specific future states of that system.
So from a purely logical point I agree. However, I've found that in most discussions such statements aren't typically made, as participants share points that bring at least some level of new information or surprise into the discussion. And, perhaps as a fault that I should learn out of, I've come to expect this as the default mode of how conversation happens.
Raising points that the point-raiser themselves doesn't think carry any surprise or novel insight sounds strange to me. To construct a contrived programmer-centric analogy, it's a bit like including lines like `if my_boolean != true || my_boolean != false { panic!("my_boolean isn't true or false!"); }` in programs. It's not technically _wrong_ to do so, but it doesn't serve any point and lines like that are typically removed because they're redundant.
I suppose "redundancy" is the key term here. If you condition investment on (paraphrasing) "also tolerating the volatility in the interim", without intending that as a statement about volatility being particularly important over the period, that begs the question why was volatility as a point raised instead of, for example, opportunity costs or importance of a good brokerage or cons of dealing with plain stocks over more tax-efficient investments. And so, choosing between "this person has happened to include redundant if-statements around their booleans and is aware of their redundancy" vs "this person has included extra checks around their booleans believing in their purpose", I opt for the latter interpretation.
And so while I concede that I am making an assumption over the literal interpretation, I also believe that it's warranted. My claim is: a person wouldn't make statements about a topic, if they themselves didn't believe those statements to be worth raising, where worth is measured by the personally perceived insightfulness of those statements.
Although, thinking out loud a bit here, I suppose that statements can also be made for other perceived sources of worth, such as pointing out non-obvious behaviours for sake of informing or educating. But even then the point-raiser believes that the non-obvious behaviour is worth knowing about, i.e. it has some real effect when accounted for by a person who wasn't aware of that. In this volatility example, I think that would equate an underlying belief of "volatility negatively affecting whether short positions are worth taking", outside of the positively-affecting "required" amount of volatility resulting from the price dropping and the short position becoming profitable.
Regading this,
> > My principal point is this: any statement reflects underlying sentiments about what's expected to happen
> This is a statement about the stock market, how do I trade on this?
I suppose one could trade this (albeit somewhat contrivedly) by looking at what the people "in the know" make statements about vs. what they don't. As an example, a CEO making a press release about "We're increasing our usage of AI" is making an overt statement statement about the company's AI usage changing, and a covert statement about they themselves believing that communicating about increasing AI usage is a good thing. Depending on what slide of the keynote the line stands, it (in my mind, per my own perception of the rate of current adoption) reads as a stronger or weaker signal that the company is a technological laggard because the CEO thinks that communicating "yesterday's news" is still worth it.
How tradeable is that by itself? Likely not at all. As a component of analysis? Maybe it's worth something.
Shorting the leading AI company during the AI revolution?
Reminds me when HN was saying NVIDIA is a good short 3 years ago, supposedly it was "in a bubble", because it's stock prices was as if it had 10x the revenue it had in back then. Plot twist: today NVIDIA revenue is 10x the revenue from 2023, so it turns out the stock was priced exactly right back then, because the stock market is forward looking.
If you view that as an investment then no. If you view it as a minor flutter then maybe. You might believe that Team X will win the next game (maybe at a 60% chance) but unless you're a degenerate gambler you wouldn't bet heavily on that outcome.
I wouldn't short it, it's likely to ruin you similar to what happened to the Tesla shorts. I would hold off to see if their earnings look good then go all in with 100-1 leverage. /s
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.
reply