Hildegarde

security through obscurity is not security

This would have happened under any other president.

Mass surveillance does not work. It does not prevent terrorist attacks under any president.

There hasn’t been a single one of elon’s companies that delivered on promised prices.

Falcon 9 is more expensive than promised. His tunnels weren’t cheaper. His cars are more expensive than promised. Cybertruck is over $100k when he promised under $40k at the launch.

Focus on what his companies can deliver. That is real. His fantasy rockets that would be superior in all ways do not exist.

The one good thing from oceangate was the fact that the CEO trusted his own life to his invention. He was in the sub when it imploded.

As stupid as he is, musk is unfortunately smart enough to know not to risk his own life in his own rockets.

starship’s payload to orbit is zero. No matter what is promised, a rocket that can only deliver payloads destructively to the bottom of the indian ocean is not a valuable launch vehicle. There are far more cost effective ways of making artificial reefs.

If you’ve followed elon musk’s projects you would know that the only thing he knows how to do is over-promise and under-deliver. It would be incredible if the things he’s promised happened, but none of them ever do. This starship will not be the exception.

The space shuttle was also big and reusable. It did not have issues like these during development.

Apollo 9 Apollo 8 went to the moon but they had multiple test flights prior to that numbering. Those are a more reasonable point of comparison.

Edit: I misremembered the number.

spacex is also not starting from zero. They previously made the falcon 9.

Just for comparison, on their 9th test flight the Apollo program they had already successfully reached orbit 5 times.

The 9th test flight of the Soyuz was their 7th time reaching orbit.

Elon’s 9th attempt is his second time reaching the bottom of the Indian ocean. Shows the level of proficiency in spacex.

Yet despite the cancer’s apparent aggressiveness, its hormone-sensitive nature offers a viable treatment pathway, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Prepare yourself for femboy biden!

yes, but for most of those men it’s a cancer they die with, rather than one they die from.

Grand juries are entirely one sided. The prosecutor tries to convince the jury. There is no defense. There is no one there to dispute anything the prosecutor says.

There’s a saying that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. Grand juries aren’t an effective barrier to frivolous law enforcement. Any prosecutor can convince a grand jury on anything. Those who can’t, don’t stay prosecutors for long.

If you make it to the Canadian side without papers, the Canadians will refuse you and send you back. On the way back you have to go through the american checkpoint. Each country’s boarder station is built on their own side of the boarder. That’s how they get nabbed in land crossings.

Although they can add an exit check, there isn’t the infrastructure for it. Immigration plazas widen to many lanes at the inspection stations. The outgoing side is just a normal road. Adding an exit check would either slow traffic to a crawl by checking cars on a normal road, or require expensive renovations at every highway boarder crossing. Its possible, but not something they can implement quickly or quietly.

It means the law works.

If they truly believe in their faith, then they will serve their sentences faithfully, as a show if their devotion to their god.

Protecting child abuse should have a cost regardless of the motivation.

it actually is

as I recall, the question was:

are republicans promising to abolish landlords now?

I’ll give you a hint, it was rhetorical question.

In case you’re unaware https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

I’m doing fine how are you?

there are ways to influence governments beyond your vote.

And who is in control of, and has been for most of the last 30 years, that system?

the two party duopoly

And it definitely won’t be solved by continuing to elect the same people who are making it worse.

the other people you propose support the exact same policies that make it worse.

Your solution continues to not be a solution.

You’re the one who missed the point.

Landlords and the system that treats housing as a profitable investment is the cause of high costs of living. This happens everywhere in the US. Cities where people want to live in the reddest of the red states have the exact same cost of living problems. Its a fundamental problem that is inherent to for-profit real estate.

Neither party wants to dismantle that system. Your solution is not a solution. High cost of living cannot be solved by switching to the other current political party.