I see your point. It is still concerning that each time they get a little further, they still end up with ships exploding.

Yes, this may be completely fine in the "testing" process, but if it becomes a regular occurrence (as it is currently), then I would reasonably expect it to explode when it is exposed to something it hasn't done yet. Like land on another planet.

Obviously if they plan on sending unmanned (unpeopled?) ships to Mars and only send people once they have successfully landed... some times? then I guess it is ok?

F around and find out.

TL:DR They didn't expect a ship, that is designed to carry people to another planet, to explode. There is no excuse for that. Stop making excuses for something that will kill people, unless they are held to higher standards.

Sorry... but isn't their goal to go to Mars? Which involves landing with people, and not exploding?

Sure, say "We did the thing in orbit etc etc, but haven't worked out the landing without incinerating the occupants" and I'd be fine with that.

Making excuses doesn't help. Iterative failures that result in better next generations is a perfectly acceptable strategy. Saying "everything is fine" when it clearly is not, is just.... bad science. It seems you are saying that they EXPECTED it to explode, and they would be ok (kinda ok, if they specifically stated they "had not worked on that bit yet") with that. In the iterative improvement scenario, it is. In the current scenario, which you are making excuses for, it is not.

Anyway, the point is that it is another failed launch. Is it a better launch? Absolutely! Was it a "good" launch? No.

... it actually works (well, still blows up, but who is counting??) and perfection means ... showing that we don't have a firm grasp on the performance aspect.

All civilized countries have laws that say you must quote the actual price.

I assume third world countri... oh. It was the US, right?

While it has been a while, apple stuff IS good, but it is also overpriced for the performance.

Or to put in another way.... the performance gain is lost to the cost increase. The statement may be true for very apecific use cases, it certainly isn' for the vast majority.

For people like me, windoze 11 is the straw that broke the camels back. Once I get booted off Win10, that is it.

For "the general public".... nope. I expect to see this same article in a few years when Micro$haft has a massive security breach the spills bank details and everything else people save on their computers.

That MAY be the final straw, when people realise they don't need spyware scanners, their OS is the spyware.

Windows is EASY. Win 10 was free (I think?) and just works. You can point to cloudstrike and BSOD issues, but for 99% of people, 99.9% of the time, their computer is a tool that is cheap, does what they want and just works. Why change?

While there are context clues (Digital Currency and Central Bank), it doesn't hurt to assume a significant portion of the audience isn't familiar with a specific collection of letters. Putting the explanation in the article would be a good thing, especially as the article doesn't mention the DC's (Digital Currency) in question are not generic, but from/owned by the actual bank itself.

Just delete this and start again.

... when the BEST sequence has you shouting at the screen "STOP SHOOTING AT THEIR FEET!".

Aimbots are EASY to program, easier than walking.

I had to read the article before I figured it out.

You can still access it via the twitter URL, don't let that egomaniac win.

Sure you can. You don't want to pay for it. (which they shouldn't need to)

This is an example of what is wrong with today's society. If something is required, someone always says "but who will pay for it?". If it is a requirement, like not having lead in water, or essential communication, the question should first be "how do I fix the problem".

There is more than enough money to go around for basic essentials, take it from non-essentials, if required. Like fossil fuel subsidies.