Linux’s ecosystem has also improved significantly over the past two years, especially in China. Due to the influence of “Xinchuang” (that is, domestically produced Linux rebranded under another shell), many Chinese desktop applications have been reworked in the past couple of years, switching from Windows-specific tech stacks to cross-platform ones—mostly Electron, basically browser wrappers—and now support the Linux platform. The commonly used software is basically all there.

In addition, the development of LLMs has greatly lowered the barrier to using the Linux command line. Problems that used to take a full day to solve can now be handled easily by anyone who can write a prompt—just ask, copy, and paste. This has even made Windows’ command line unfriendly by comparison, despite its own major improvements in recent years, turning it into a significant drawback.

He makes electric vehicles. The extreme weight sensitivity of motorcycles means that high-performance racing motorcycles, whether fully electric or hybrid, are not practical; if they have a power battery, that already makes them unsuitable.

In the era of Windows 95, having a network connection was still a rarity. Expecting modern systems to have package management and sandboxing mechanisms would have been 20 years ahead of their time.

Even that TUI is written in React.

I know, which seems absurd to me. Like, TUIs are 1) a solved problem, b) performant, and c) right there, on every single computer in the world. (Someone please correct me, to point out that there's some weird OS somewhere that doesn't have a shell, so I can say "Yeah, but does it run Claude?")

Is there an engineering-based reason, or is it that the AI knows React, so it's easier to vibe, and damn the user experience?

I recently had a similar idea. https://github.com/Water-Run/Cmdset

ICBMs also have a similar speed at the terminal warhead stage — only the direction is different.

I’d prefer to cheer for something that’s primary objective isn’t killing people. So there’s that, too.

Just a friendly reminder that midterms are this year.

We'll survive; not sure about our present voting rights.

That’s incorrect — it is both. That’s why orbital refueling is so important to Starship’s future.

Fine, but you're dodging the actual point here I think

So you agree that SLS provides useful functionality and that Musk lied about Starship being a Mars bus.

Developing something like this would push the frontiers of human technology. Without the Apollo program, not to mention anything else, the personal computer boom in the 1970s might have been delayed by a long time.

We're redoing things we did before most people in this thread were even born, how would any of this "push the frontiers of human technology?"

The Space Shuttle’s technology is indeed quite old, but by today’s standards it is not exactly outdated. What matters is that we have lost the ability to carry out that technology — or even the ability to organize and coordinate a project like that. Otherwise, the price of the SLS as an “off-the-shelf product” would not be so outrageous, and it would not keep getting delayed again and again. Technology gets forgotten and capability is lost as people and suppliers disappear. The fact that we could build the Saturn V half a century ago does not mean we could still build it today; even the fact that we could build the F-22 twenty years ago does not mean we could still produce it now once the production lines are gone. Restoring that capability is always a good thing, considering the indirect effects.

Because we have gone backwards so any advancement requires some repetition.

Strange that SpaceX doesn’t seem to be suffering from that limitation. Could it be that the real problem is pork barrel spending and government wastefulness?

Which mission went to the moon?

Why would they go to the moon? They’re far too busy doing things that actually matter, such as slashing launch costs by 80% or more, while achieving the highest reliability of any launch system ever.

So a bunch of things every other space program does.

What are you talking about? SLS is on the way to the Moon now. Starship is still in development. SpaceX only exists because of massive NASA subsidy. Any success from SpaceX is thanks to NASA.

NASA provided SpaceX some money as a startup to bet they could just start commercial space, and they won to the tune of saving millions of dollars. There was never massive subsidies and there isn’t any subsidies at all today.

This is a lie. SpaceX has received at least 3.5 billion dollars from NASA for contracts. You can claim these aren’t subsidies but they are direct funding that allowed SpaceX to build up revenue streams like Starlink using the launch vehicles paid for by NASA. It’s the exact same funding model that Boeing takes advantage of. SpaceX would not exist without NASA. They’re collaborators, not competitors.

>We're redoing things we did before most people in this thread were even born

oh really? show me a picture of the dark side of the moon then

not a reconstruction, not touched up crap based on data like that black hole pic that went viral a few years ago, an actual photograph taken by an astronaut of the dark side of the moon

The first orbit of the moon by a manned spacecraft was Apollo 8 in 1968.

The first photos of the dark side of the moon were taken by the Soviet Luna-3 probe in 1959.

Nothing being done here is revolutionary.

Thanks to Claude Code, we got such a beautifully polished and dazzling website that gives a complete introduction to itself the very moment the leak happened :)

Feels a bit like gradually moving back toward analog circuits, step by step. There is less and less need for the precision that digital circuits provide.

What ? How did you come to this conclusion with this context ?

Traditional programming requires the absolute precision provided by digital circuits; a single bit flip can lead to a completely different outcome.

Large models do not require that kind of exactness. They are somewhat like a "field" or a "probability cloud": as long as the main directional tendency is correct, a few individual deviations—or even a whole cluster of them—make almost no difference.