Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
@WildOrangutan It drives me nuts. Sure, teenagers on Twitter will do that, but it's literally a journalists professional responsibility to be fair and impartial. If they can't do that, especially as a specialist correspondent in the area they're reporting on - what's the point. May as well just fire them all and pull our daily news feed from Reddit.
If the average dev did as bad a job as the average journalist then they'd never have an online platform to publish anything on anyway. -
@FuckJava True, but that's mainly because SpaceX is a private company which has to be economically efficient while gov org can operate under less pressure.
The USSRs failures were more due to their way of operation. All the higher-ups were party members and "problems" and "failures" were generally not accepted, thus were swiped under the rug, until the rug actually exploded. Just like Chernobyl: The weaknesses were known, but kept secret. -
@PonySlaystation I think it's fair to say it's *different* pressures.
Being publicly funded, anything that looks like a failure for Nasa (like a massive rocket blowing up) has huge implications, because it dents public confidence, which over time results in less funding (hey, why are we spending billions for these idiots to blow up rockets?!)
Being privately funded however, SpaceX doesn't really care - they just care about producing a proven launch system as fast as possible to rake in the $$, and if they have to blow up a dozen or two rockets on the way through trial and error then who cares. -
@PonySlaystation That's true, but Saturn was built by private companies. Granted, they held NASA by the balls as NASA had promised to beat the Ruskies to the moon before the decade was out, still, Saturn was a joint venture between Boeing, North American and Douglas, and was delivered (here I'm copy/pasting from Wikipedia as I don't have enough information myself) within project budget.
I totally agree with what you say about USSR, just that build it cheap and rapidly is more like ะ ะพัะบะพัะผะพั.
Regarding Chernobyl, yes it was an awful fail-prone design but at the end of the day, the disaster happened because of poor operator choices. -
im just gonna leave this here
https://youtu.be/ErDuVomNd9M
the channel overall gives some good scientific truths about many of Musks projects. its not all gloom how the latter tries to give the impression, hyped up by elon fanboys. -
@Demolishun @nururururu @WildOrangutan @AlmondSauce and Musk will say it was a success to keep investors up... getting fooled by both the billionare and the media now huh
Is it just me, or are the media / journalists once again putting a stupidly unfair pessimistic spin on that SpaceX launch?
"SpaceX rocket launches but explodes shortly into flight"
"Musk's SpaceX big rocket explodes on test flight"
"SpaceX rocket explosion: None injured or killed"
They've said time and time again, it's the first test of a massively complex rocket that's bigger than anything that's ever gone before it, and success is just defined as "getting off the launch pad" and collecting data. They did that and then some.
But instead of spreading excitement about the data, the fact it launched, that it's a world first, etc. - it's all doom and gloom, implying that the whole thing was a failure and people could have died ๐
And people wonder why I have a low opinion of journalists.
rant