For example: is the rocket really "rapidly reusable"? Or is it theoretically "rapidly reusable"?
In the same way that all Tesla's sold since 2017 have the hardware capable of self-driving. Are they really capable of it, or theoretically capable? Until you have self-driving software or have rapidly reused the rocket, how do you know? In the same sense, until they landed a rocket, saying "we have a rocket capable of landing" didn't matter; landing it did.
I may not be articulating it properly, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding how they test these claims.
>It's the whole architecture: a two-stage, rapidly reusable rocket with as much cargo capacity as anything to ever fly. And just as important for interplanetary flight: The upper stage is refuelable and is integrated with the passenger compartment and has a large delta-v capability as well as aerobraking/capture/entry.
I don't know much about SpaceX, but I do follow Tesla closely: how much of this is reality versus "things we'd like to be able to do in the future"?
>Just gotta say, its pretty amazing we live in a world where 1 billion dollars can get transferred pseudo-anonymously in a reasonable time frame, only costing the transfer party $600.
I'm quite sure the banking system could do the same, no problem. These are not technical limitations, they are regulatory. It's controversial enough whether any human actually needs a billion dollars, let alone the freedom to move/spend it however they want with zero oversight. But that's just me.
I agree, but want to emphasize that it's not necessarily sinister: they simply have no money to do the things they've promised. That's best case. Worst case is sinister.
Can you show you get this from? I see it repeated on these boards, ad nauseum, that Tesla is spending their "profits" on R&D and building infrastructure.
But in reality, you can see from their financial statements that Tesla's CAPEX spending is embarrassingly small for an auto company, and shrinking. They spent $2BB in 2018 and are on pace to spend half that in 2019. As a sibling comments states, their spending doesn't even cover depreciation of assets. For comparison, Ford spent almost $10BB on CAPEX last year, GM spent $10.8BB, VW spent over $12BB.
>If they wanted a profit, they could have one. They just don't want one right now.
You can't honestly believe this, can you? What are they waiting for? Why do they keep raising funds? Where is the money going?
How is this any different than selling a house for $1 million, putting that $1 million into a different house, and then the value of that new house falls to $100k?
If you sell the second house for $100k, you're on the hook for the tax on the net capital gains.
>for the most part it's been as practical as a card and often faster
Have you ever used a card? If you think that opening your phone, scanning a QR and then hitting "verify" is faster than a tap or swipe of your credit card, I'm not sure what to tell you. Best case scenario, they're about the same.
>I can call up my card company and claim a fraudulent charge after getting the goods
And they'll investigate and determine you committed fraud, and you'll be fined or go to prison. What's the equivalent with Bitcoin?
>If a large enough percentage of people bail on their student loans/medical debt then eventually dozens of predatory banks and "medical billing" companies will go out of business and then we can actually start to change things.
Pretty naive view of the way things work. The more likely outcome is that those in need will be denied service in the future, either medical or financial. Or do you think we should force employees and medical staff to service people who will not pay for said service? How will that work?
I realize the entire situation is a mess, but simply bailing on your obligations to "teach these people a lesson" will backfire. Case in point: you think the bank is hurt by your defaulting your $50,000 in obligations? They have a lien on your personal assets, and the number is insignificant to the size of their balance sheet.
For example: is the rocket really "rapidly reusable"? Or is it theoretically "rapidly reusable"?
In the same way that all Tesla's sold since 2017 have the hardware capable of self-driving. Are they really capable of it, or theoretically capable? Until you have self-driving software or have rapidly reused the rocket, how do you know? In the same sense, until they landed a rocket, saying "we have a rocket capable of landing" didn't matter; landing it did.
I may not be articulating it properly, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding how they test these claims.