Which can be a failure in itself when you spend 10 years and tens of billions building something “perfectly” only for it to break on its maiden voyage. That makes you wonder what was the point of doing everything so methodically when they could have taken a more efficient and iterative approach.
You’re the person who corrects people to say “datum” and “the data are …” aren’t you?
Potato potato
What if he and his identical twin stole two identical cars at the same time?
What if it executes and install Windows 11 on your machine!?
Third-party ECUs are already wildly popular items (Holley Sniper and Terminator along with less popular third-party products).
Also, your car being an automatic isn’t the difficult part of the conversion, having to fabricate the parts to adapt the drivetrain and battery are.
Edison is working with Deboss Garage (youtube) to build electric and hybrid electric conversions for passenger trucks too.
The 80s famously didn’t have any muscle cars due to the gas shortages of the 1970s, new emissions standards, and burgeoning popularity of Japanese imports.
Because the prosecutor threw the case.
They have a $25B yearly budget.
What is SpaceX spending on R&D? From what I’ve read, Starship is estimated to cost $10B for development and their R&D budget for 2023 was $1.5B. If NASA was going to build something similar themselves, they’ve had nearly 70 years and hundreds of billions to accomplish it.
In reality their budget goes toward companies like Boeing, Northrop Grummon, and Lockheed Martin, who then pocket it and build substandard equipment. This is all public information so I can’t imagine why people are downvoting other than being extremely emotional for some inexplicable reason.
The Israeli army’s radio said that Israeli F-35 fighter jets dropped 2000-pound bunker-buster bombs on the residential buildings.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-has-sent-israel-thousands-2000-pound-bombs-since-oct-7-2024-06-28/
NASA farms these out to outside companies to build anyway, as seen with the latest Boeing space fiasco, so I don’t necessarily believe this to be true. These defense contractors seem to be interested in little more than milking the US government for all they’re worth.
just weeks before the payments giant was sued by the U.S. Department of Justice
Months before to be more precise. He also sold them a year after the investigation was announced when the share price was lower than it is today, after the lawsuit was filed, so I don’t see why this one example is being viewed as being so scandalous.
The investigation was announced publicly a year ago.
And it should be noted that when he sold these shares, the share price was even lower than it is now after the lawsuit was announced and the stock dropped within the last few days.
It also screws with post sorting on the front page since Lemmy still doesn’t have a high enough rate of new posts/comments.
Not sure why you keep claiming that nobody but you read the article since I did read it. Perhaps you should put a little effort into writing your comments instead of doing a copy and paste along with a two word comment?
Why did you include a different quote in your last comment when you said “that’s why?”
Now you’re saying “no that’s not why, (new quote) this is why!”
Yes but apparently she was busy doing cocaine and using the prop guns with live ammunition to shoot cans in their downtime to consider the safety aspect. People will point out that she’s unqualified or whatever, but her father is a famous Hollywood armorer as well.
There’s no way that sparkling white cat is feral.
This is such a farce that I hear about all the time in the true crime podcasts I listen to. Prosecutors find themselves with a case that has no direct evidence pointing to their guy and 9 times out of 10 they pull a jailhouse informant out of the woodwork at the 11th hour claiming that their guy confessed (to a complete stranger) every little detail of their crime.
Meanwhile whenever someone who may have any sort of criminal record comes on the stand to defend the defendent, prosecutors claim they can’t possibly be trustworthy because they have a record.
It’s a clear “heads I win, tails you lose” situation in the courtroom most of the time.