It might very well be that building and maintaining a bridge for 100 years costs three or four times as much as building and maintaining one that last 50 years. If demolition costs are not same as cost of bridge well in long run replacing the bridge ever 50 years is cheaper.

On whole it is entirely reasonable optimisation problem. What is the best lifespan of single bridge over desired total lifespan.

Demos might ne nice an flashy. But eventually you actually have to have generally working product. Too many issues with too many annoyances and eventually users of even enterprise software will be heard. Especially so if there is some actual loss of money or data that is not corrected very fast.

In the end software is means to the end. And if you do not get to end because software is crap it will be replaced, hopefully by someone else.

Yes. Fundamentally goods and services at time you retire must be produced by someone. If there is less people producing that means that labour will get more expensive. Or then you must really kick down that population. And well if they don't take it well you might have no retirement...

I think this has been shown for fast majority with homework. You just don't learn much by copying homework from somewhere else. Actual effort is needed for learning process. Unless you are some weird most likely rare genius...

Also makes me think of lot of incidental learning that can go on. Like when looking at API docs noticing the other things. Might not be useful now, but could very well be later.

I would also say give them a year of free vacations in various places. Say a maximum security prison in general population, any type of dark camps, hospitals, mental institutions and care homes.

Give them the rest and recreation they need in these wonderful places.

Most players are rational actors and this isn't their first time in this sort of market. Getting more production online if you do not have slack like downtime takes quite a while. And there is no guarantee that they can sell the new production even at previous rates if they end up in over supply.

Generally people just don't understand how long ramping up new production facilities can take and what is the realistic pay off period for them.

And stock holders. Too long they have gotten the profits, but suffered none of the losses personally from their own bank accounts.

Maybe that will make everyone to think what is going on with this retirement plan build on stock market growth and expectation there will be something to buy with that "wealth" in future...

Anyone else find the exact number somewhat weird. Like one would expect it to end in 0 or 2 or 5...

The total weight probably ends in a 0 or a 5.

SpaceX has reasonable business in it. Not a hypergrowth one, but one which should be solid in long term.

To get that to work they just would need to discard Musk and most things with him. Stop trying to make starship a thing, dump everything attached to it. Make a long term plan to improve the core lift capacity with actually achievable improvements.

> To get that to work they just would need to discard Musk and most things with him

I'll have a pet unicorn shitting rainbows before Musk leaves one of his toys or we see in-orbit leading-edge (or anything close to it) processor production. SpaceX is a decent albeit capital intensive business if it's valued at $100-200B. At the proposed $1.5T+ valuation for this dog... the bagholder search is on.