Scott Reams

@BenKellylol @DelusionPosting According to this image, the Earth is about 15,000 feet in diameter. Or less than 3 miles. Amazing how we fit so many continents on such a tiny thing

@DelusionPosting earth diameter + 5,000ft= 12,757km earth diameter + 30,000ft=12,766km pi*d= circumference (travel distance) 5000ft= 40,077km 30,000ft= 40,105km 28km difference, increase of 0.07%!

@n0tf0rpr0fit1 @BuckyDucky2 @MrBeast ...and that utopia does not exist. So be a part of achieving the much more realistic result of getting blue past the 50 percent mark. So much easier.

@MisterCatStudio @BuckyDucky2 @MrBeast if everyone chooses red, everyone lives too.

Everyone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press? BE HONEST.

@BuckyDucky2 @Cleebe1 @n0tf0rpr0fit1 @MrBeast The building isn't burning if most people do the logical thing and simply make the choice that kills no one at all. You may have logic-ed your way into the red pill/button, but polling says that by far, most have not. No evidence points to a different result.

@Cleebe1 @n0tf0rpr0fit1 @MisterCatStudio @MrBeast It is easy to say you'll run into a burning building to save others. Few ever do

@TheAnonyomusGuy @BuckyDucky2 @MrBeast "if nobody presses blue" This utopia does not exist. People you know and love will press blue regardless of how much logic you think you've applied. Lucky for you, the majority who chose blue saved your family when you would not.

@MisterCatStudio @BuckyDucky2 @MrBeast The problem with this prompt is that by pressing blue your just gambling with death, while choosing red results in everyone being safe if nobody presses blue.

@GamingWare38304 @BuckyDucky2 @MrBeast Well... blue won. So if 10,000 more people had chosen red, countless people would have died. Instead, nobody died. Blue was always the right choice, especially if you care even a little about the friends and family you know would have chosen blue.

@BuckyDucky2 @MrBeast I don't think you understand the question either. It's not a moral or political question. It's an idiot test. The question is based on pure logic. Red has a 0% chance of dying. Blue is a coin flip. The choice is obvious for everyone involved.

@BuckyDucky2 @MrBeast Except that by choosing red, you are also voting to kill people you *do* know. We all have friends and relatives who would press blue. This isn't just about strangers.

The problem is that this is not an honest poll. Nobody's really understanding what the question is asking, and very few people are really in tune with themselves enough to know what the answer would actually be. If you are pressing blue, you are saying that you're willing to risk your life for other people you do not know. This is really easy for anyone to say they would do, but very few people actually will. If you watched a little kid almost died because of something they intentionally did, it's really easy for you to go "yeah I'll go help him and risk my own life" because that's a kid. Now replace that kid with a maga hat wearing, overweight redneck, who believes trains people should die, gay people shouldn't have rights, who hates black people, and thinks women should be in the kitchen. If you saw that guy knowingly almost kill himself, would you really 100% honestly put yourself in harm's way to save him. I most certainly would not, and that is really the actual question being asked here. If you are voting blue and you have even a shred of doubt whether or not you would save that person, in a real word scenario I doubt you would actually vote blue.

@David977946579 @RogerBreuer @elonmusk There is little to no reason to do that for a booster. They only ever need to land back at the launch site, or potentially out at sea downrange a bit. Landing legs add a bunch of weight and reduce range and/or payload to orbit.

@RogerBreuer @elonmusk While a catch is impressive I’d much rather see rockets land on the ground without any infrastructure other than a landing pad.

Falcon Heavy

@ellis_ald @RogerBreuer @elonmusk Um, what? The tower at Pad 1 did multiple catches and will do more once they update the pad next to it to the current version. Pad 2's launch/catch tower is already built and ready to go. A 3rd tower is nearly ready in Florida.

@RogerBreuer @elonmusk ...Don't think that this same robotic apparatus can do another catch... And, these parts r very expensive 2build another one... & he finances(Most or all of) his projects?? But, he may do something else dazzling, beautiful& also stimulating 4the human minds again though👍👍...

@lillilmur @elonmusk Uh... Starliner is Boeing.

They really got under your skin with the silliness surrounding your alleged nazi salute. But if you want to play politics you will have to toughen up. Your demand is very Trumpian, but he owns the DOJ - you don’t. Perhaps you had best concentrate on getting your star-liner to mars. Two years time was the deadline.

Shut it down

@nekadazbognje @DailyBanterMeme @astro_reid @Astro_Christina This proves that half the Earth is fake! Question is... which half?

@DailyBanterMeme @astro_reid @Astro_Christina I want to see entire Earth one time not just half

Only one chance in this lifetime… Like watching sunset at the beach from the most foreign seat in the cosmos, I couldn’t resist a cell phone video of Earthset. You can hear the shutter on the Nikon as @Astro_Christina is hammering away on 3-shot brackets and capturing those exceptional Earthset photos through the 400mm lens. @AstroVicGlover was in window 3 watching with @Astro_Jeremy next to him. I could barely see the Moon through the docking hatch window but the iPhone was the perfect size to catch the view…this is uncropped, uncut with 8x zoom which is quite comparable to the view of the human eye. Enjoy.

@fwd79 @50_mat @MarcusHouse Right. But you said "the second stage reused engines". What did you mean by that?

@MisterCatStudio @50_mat @MarcusHouse The payload wasn’t deployed on the nominal orbit. That’s the failure.

OMG!

@stevecrye @MarcusHouse It would also require very heavy landing legs.

@MarcusHouse Very nice. This validates why SpaceX has decided to catch Superheavy. Something as large as Starship landing on a barge would require a deluge system to protect the deck.

@50_mat @MarcusHouse ? The 2nd stage uses BE-3U engines. I don't believe they have ever re-used those. The 2nd stage is not recovered and the engines are lost.

@MarcusHouse Okay. It landed on a drone ship. It wasn’t all reused. It had all new engines and was successful. The second stage reused engines and was not a success for the customer.

@zenodaddy @blueorigin Uh, SpaceX would like a word...

@blueorigin Well, we are now seeing why NASA used to take so long to do things and why no private companies were allowed to try and enter the space market. Stop screwing up. It isn't, "new data"... it's failing, ALL THE TIME!

NG-3 Update: We have confirmed payload separation. AST SpaceMobile has confirmed the satellite has powered on. The payload was placed into an off-nominal orbit. We are currently assessing and will update when we have more detailed information.

@elonmusk Less vocal fry, please.

Try it out!

@Monsieur3g @brivael Unlike the car, you were able to observe that this was a giant painting/photograph. What sense did you use to make that determination? Did you need LiDAR to figure it out? This is a software "problem", if it is even a problem at all, as nowhere in the real world is this an issue

Aujourd'hui grosse discussion avec mes ingés (chez Argil) sur pourquoi Elon a viré le LIDAR de ses voitures autonomes. Choix radical, moqué pendant des années, et comme d'hab il avait raison depuis le début. Le LIDAR c'est un laser qui balaye l'environnement et crache un nuage de points 3D. Sur le papier tu obtiens la géométrie exacte du monde. Dans la vraie vie c'est une verrue technologique collée sur le toit parce qu'on sait pas faire mieux avec la vision seule. Problème numéro un : ça rajoute une modalité dans le training du modèle. Ton réseau doit apprendre à fusionner vision + lidar + radar + ultrasons. Chaque capteur en plus c'est une source de désaccord à arbitrer, pas une source d'info supplémentaire. Sensor fusion artisanale = dette technique permanente. Problème numéro deux, la bitter lesson de Rich Sutton : scaler le compute sur une seule modalité bat systématiquement les architectures bricolées à la main. Tesla a dropé le radar, puis les ultrasons, est passé full end-to-end vision. Leur courbe sur les edge cases s'est accélérée APRÈS, pas avant. Waymo fait l'inverse et reste stuck en ops géofencée. Problème numéro trois, le plus fondamental : le LIDAR voit la géométrie, pas la sémantique. Il sait qu'il y a un truc, pas ce que c'est ni ce que ça va faire. Les derniers 9 de fiabilité sont des problèmes de cognition, pas de perception brute. Un capteur de plus résout rien, il ajoute du bruit. Sébastien Loeb balance une 208 T16 à 180 dans un chemin boueux corse sous la pluie avec zéro LIDAR. Deux yeux, un cerveau. L'évolution a donné des yeux aux prédateurs pendant 500 millions d'années, pas des lasers. Il y a une raison. Le LIDAR c'est l'équivalent du marxisme appliqué à l'économie. Une solution planifiée, centralisée, qui prétend modéliser explicitement ce qui doit émerger d'un système distribué et adaptatif. Tu remplaces l'intelligence par de la mesure, la compréhension par de la donnée, l'émergence par le contrôle. Ça rassure les ingénieurs qui veulent tout spécifier en amont, exactement comme la planif rassurait les économistes soviétiques. Et ça échoue pour les mêmes raisons : la réalité est trop riche pour être capturée par un capteur, comme elle est trop riche pour être capturée par un plan quinquennal. La vraie intelligence, celle de Hayek comme celle de Tesla, c'est de faire confiance à un système qui apprend de l'expérience plutôt que de tout pré-encoder. L'élégance d'une solution c'est son rapport signal sur complexité. Le LIDAR explose le dénominateur. Défendre le LIDAR en 2026 c'est préférer empiler des hacks plutôt que résoudre le vrai problème. C'est de la feignasserie intellectuelle maquillée en rigueur d'ingénieur. Les mêmes gens qui défendaient les systèmes experts en 2012 contre le deep learning. Ils finiront pareil. Never bet against end-to-end. Never bet against la simplicité. Never bet against Elon.

@MobiusDick @elonmusk Nobody said it wasn't.

Stainless steel is made with carbon guys. Are you a metallurgist now too? Great that your range of understanding is eclectic but also remember, sometimes a little knowledge is dangerous like when you rant about population collapse. Right now, we have a long way to go before we make it off planet, and population collapse isn’t going to be a thing in the same way limited resources are.

Stainless Steel Starship

@trynormie @elonmusk There are two complete heatshields in that photo

@elonmusk still no heat shield?

@TeeDaGamer @mymomcare @elonmusk One could use that argument to not ever fix anything.

@mymomcare @elonmusk Most of America can’t afford to live or live paycheck to paycheck and this is what you all are worrying about about. 😡😡😡😡

So many phonies, so few who are the real deal

@NevermindChap @ASimonds99252 @mattvanswol Two people were drunk and hooked up. How did you determine which one could not give consent?

@ASimonds99252 @mattvanswol No it's not

🚨#BREAKING: A 16-year-old girl reported missing from Charlotte NC has just been FOUND during a traffic stop with a 37-year-old man. The driver, Joshua Magraff, 37, of Charlotte, North Carolina, initially said the passenger was his 16-year-old cousin. The deputy placed the juvenile in his patrol car and she told him her real name. Upon a search, it was found that the teen was reported missing a month earlier from North Carolina. Contact was made with the teen's mother. The mother stated she did not know Magraff and she reported her daughter missing on Feb. 16. When deputies asked Magraff what his connection was to the teen, Magraff changed his story to she was a friend. When deputies asked him why he was hanging out with a 16-year-old his story changed AGAIN to stating he thought she was 19. Magraff was arrested and charged with interference in child custody, synthetic marijuana possession, possession of counterfeit currency, contributing to delinquency of a minor and possession of drug paraphernalia. God bless our police officers, they DO NOT get enough credit for the work they do.