wanderingfool2

I agree, the guy had a bit of annoying voice.
 
For those who don't really want to watch all of it; at least skip to 1:01:24 [the tl;dr up to that point, the guy used a sound/music that dbrand has made and dbrand called him out and he has at this point offered to credit them] and try to watch to 1:07:07 mark
 
Honestly, though that message is terrible...like seriously anyone at least look at that set of DM's that were posted.  That is outright asking someone initially to hand over things that would be under an NDA [only to respond 6 minutes later after seeing it was read without a response].  Actually I'd argue that what dbrand might be illegal, whether it's the attempt at corporate espionage of trade secrets, to them outright asking him to pay after he complied with what they already agreed upon [it's definitely at least an abuse of power].

I agree, the guy had a bit of annoying voice.
 
For those who don't really want to watch all of it; at least skip to 1:01:24 [the tl;dr up to that point, the guy used a sound/music that dbrand has made and dbrand called him out and he has at this point offered to credit them] and try to watch to 1:07:07 mark
 
Honestly, though that message is terrible...like seriously anyone at least look at that set of DM's that were posted.  That is outright asking someone initially to hand over things that would be under an NDA [only to respond 6 minutes later after seeing it was read without a response].  Actually I'd argue that what dbrand might be illegal, whether it's the attempt at corporate espionage of trade secrets, to them outright asking him to pay after he complied with what they already agreed upon [it's definitely at least an abuse of power].

Should be noted as well, facial recognition as well tends to build up based on hashes...so it's not like you actually be able to recreate the face from the hash.
 
e.g. A few ways that it can keep a hash, using the distance between your eyes, nose width/length, width between cheek bones, and distance from eyes to mouth.  Even with storing those numbers you can get decently accurate results and the key is it really isnt like it's storing sensitive data.
 
 
 
As long as the data is only used for work related purposes, I really don't see too much of the big deal that people seem to have.  Even if they kept your data after you left, what harm is there?  If they get hacked sure...but they will have far more important information on you.  I don't really see much of a market for a face hash.  Especially when you consider that most people if you knew their name, places they worked, etc you could easily find most people's faces online and do it anyways.
 
  
I am lactose intolerant, the amount of times [before digital ordering screens] I would ask for a hamburger and get a cheeseburger instead.  Honestly, I would so love a fully automated McDonalds...then maybe it would actually be affordable again *relative to the quality*

Not to mention they have your full legal name, address, phone number, SSN, etc, probably on paper in the office as well and electronically.

I don't see this as a big deal.
You're already handing away biometric data and seem to be fine with that, and I believe the fingerprint to be more sensitive data than your face.
 
I also see this as possibly speeding up the process compared to fingerprints.
 
Sadly, i also see McDonalds as being a place where employees are less than trustworthy and could use some more monitoring. A lot of young teenagers who try to cheat a bit.
 
Outside of some wording (which is hard to tell without reading the full contract) I see this as a non issue.

The whole thing is a bit complex though; should an artist then who wants to draw in the style of artist XYZ then have to comply by the same kind of thing.  After all, there are artists who draw in the style of another painter [without having to purchase their works].
 
Take for example, Orion an Elvis Presly impersonator.  He didn't get the rights to Elvis' likeness/voice, yet he still sung very much like Elvis and did tributes to Elvis...if the AI lets say produced the same output then it would have to in this case.  I say for training sets we should treat it like almost a human.
 
The whole thing is a finicky subject, but I think a better option would be Japan's approach...that pretty much anything is free-game and the output is what is part of copyright laws.
 
Also, the whole impractical to train thing, that would push the AI to only large companies who can pay for it...so in other words this would be giving an effective monopoly to ChatGPT, Microsoft and Google [when considering them as one]...well actually what it will do is push all the services to offshore companies, which means now you have no control over it [i.e. Japanese companies or other companies that have less ].
 
Generative AI is a tool that is really helpful and can speed up productivity; new technology has always brought in the "poor xyz" workers.  The thing is everything adapts and people end up finding jobs elsewhere.  I mean if we wanted to go about "stolen" data then we have to acknowledge the impact on VHS and cassette tapes which "harmed" so many artists by allowing the copying of their songs.

The whole thing is a bit complex though; should an artist then who wants to draw in the style of artist XYZ then have to comply by the same kind of thing.  After all, there are artists who draw in the style of another painter [without having to purchase their works].
 
Take for example, Orion an Elvis Presly impersonator.  He didn't get the rights to Elvis' likeness/voice, yet he still sung very much like Elvis and did tributes to Elvis...if the AI lets say produced the same output then it would have to in this case.  I say for training sets we should treat it like almost a human.
 
The whole thing is a finicky subject, but I think a better option would be Japan's approach...that pretty much anything is free-game and the output is what is part of copyright laws.
 
Also, the whole impractical to train thing, that would push the AI to only large companies who can pay for it...so in other words this would be giving an effective monopoly to ChatGPT, Microsoft and Google [when considering them as one]...well actually what it will do is push all the services to offshore companies, which means now you have no control over it [i.e. Japanese companies or other companies that have less ].
 
Generative AI is a tool that is really helpful and can speed up productivity; new technology has always brought in the "poor xyz" workers.  The thing is everything adapts and people end up finding jobs elsewhere.  I mean if we wanted to go about "stolen" data then we have to acknowledge the impact on VHS and cassette tapes which "harmed" so many artists by allowing the copying of their songs.

Well for starters, did you put in your address yet?  Given the shipping isnt showing a price I'm assuming not.
 
Although one thing that I always think of is because taxes can be complicated depending where a person lives.  I'm assuming it's probably in place because if you place an order and it takes a day or two to process; but in the meantime new tax laws come into effect the end user will end up paying potentially different amounts [as some places might consider the time the item shipped or the time a purchase is made as the official time].  Or maybe to cover themselves in the odd case where someone starts the order at 11:59 and places the order 12:01 local time [and during that time new tariff's/taxes came into effect].  It sounds more like a legal thing if anything to protect themselves

While it's good of them to issue a proper apology and recognize what has gone on [i.e. their direct comment lead to racism, and it's not the first time their comments has lead to grief being put on their targeted victim], it's still l pretty bad that it took someone like MKHD threatening to back out to actually provide a proper apology; while you have @LinusTech doing what he does and deflect away with an utter lack of awareness of what actually is being said.
 
dbrand is a company that I will be actively avoiding from now on in how they handled this situation.  Being edgy you will cross the line, but when you do and create chaos you better well be ready to back down instead of making a joke of the whole situation.
 
To be clear as well the guy still isn't okay with the message that was portrayed
 

While it's good of them to issue a proper apology and recognize what has gone on [i.e. their direct comment lead to racism, and it's not the first time their comments has lead to grief being put on their targeted victim], it's still l pretty bad that it took someone like MKHD threatening to back out to actually provide a proper apology; while you have @LinusTech doing what he does and deflect away with an utter lack of awareness of what actually is being said.
 
dbrand is a company that I will be actively avoiding from now on in how they handled this situation.  Being edgy you will cross the line, but when you do and create chaos you better well be ready to back down instead of making a joke of the whole situation.
 
To be clear as well the guy still isn't okay with the message that was portrayed
 

The whole dbrand thing is bad, and honestly they should lose sponsorships over this.  The initial joke, while I don't think was racist, should have received an apology and immediate explanation about just making fun of anyones name that sounds like other things in English and had no intent to speak of someone's race.
 
The fact they didn't do this and double downed, while again not racist, shows an ignorance of what people who face racism and shows a reluctance to accept that how one reads the post could potentially be construed as racist.
  
The first joke, I wouldn't call it racist but rather them just being ignorant of the connotation.  [As a whole I'd say it's more of a massive culturally insensitive and massively disrespectful vs racist...although I view the level of culturally insensitive as being unacceptable as it can promote racism]
 
Poking fun at names isn't inherently racist, English speakers get their names poked fun at a lot as well, but if there is backlash one must learn of negative connotations and issue a formal apology with an explanation that about the intent and not realizing the connotation.  The part that makes this really bad though is their whole response, continuing on as a joke...and this is where I think the line is drawn and it's wildly culturally insensitive to the point.
 
 
Overall though, using someone's name as a characteristic of a person is I think problematic at it's heart.  While things like Willy as a name is made fun of, I think it hits different than lets say being named Karen and having someone address you as a "Karen"; as you are now characterizing who they are as a person based on their name.  For that I think dbrand, regardless of ethnicity, went overboard.
 
Boiling racism down to solely the color of someone's skin isn't I think right; rather it's about the ethnicity of things.  While not racism, Women weren't treated as equals until the 1920's [there are people still alive who existed in a time women couldn't vote].
 
Scottish and Irish people have been a target of other "white" people, being a natural red-head is still associated with being "soul-less".  The whole class system in the European world as well [which eventually got to the point of revolutions/toppling of monarchies].
 
I'm not trying to trivialize what people of color have endured, and continue to endure though, but the argument that "white people" are somehow more free-game for their name ignores that the majority of the population back even 200 - 300 years ago was somehow oppressed.
 
 
 
Overall, I am mad at dbrand, and do think they deserve to have their sponsorships to be paused for a while [as an indication of non-acceptance of the position]

The whole dbrand thing is bad, and honestly they should lose sponsorships over this.  The initial joke, while I don't think was racist, should have received an apology and immediate explanation about just making fun of anyones name that sounds like other things in English and had no intent to speak of someone's race.
 
The fact they didn't do this and double downed, while again not racist, shows an ignorance of what people who face racism and shows a reluctance to accept that how one reads the post could potentially be construed as racist.
  
The first joke, I wouldn't call it racist but rather them just being ignorant of the connotation.  [As a whole I'd say it's more of a massive culturally insensitive and massively disrespectful vs racist...although I view the level of culturally insensitive as being unacceptable as it can promote racism]
 
Poking fun at names isn't inherently racist, English speakers get their names poked fun at a lot as well, but if there is backlash one must learn of negative connotations and issue a formal apology with an explanation that about the intent and not realizing the connotation.  The part that makes this really bad though is their whole response, continuing on as a joke...and this is where I think the line is drawn and it's wildly culturally insensitive to the point.
 
 
Overall though, using someone's name as a characteristic of a person is I think problematic at it's heart.  While things like Willy as a name is made fun of, I think it hits different than lets say being named Karen and having someone address you as a "Karen"; as you are now characterizing who they are as a person based on their name.  For that I think dbrand, regardless of ethnicity, went overboard.
 
Boiling racism down to solely the color of someone's skin isn't I think right; rather it's about the ethnicity of things.  While not racism, Women weren't treated as equals until the 1920's [there are people still alive who existed in a time women couldn't vote].
 
Scottish and Irish people have been a target of other "white" people, being a natural red-head is still associated with being "soul-less".  The whole class system in the European world as well [which eventually got to the point of revolutions/toppling of monarchies].
 
I'm not trying to trivialize what people of color have endured, and continue to endure though, but the argument that "white people" are somehow more free-game for their name ignores that the majority of the population back even 200 - 300 years ago was somehow oppressed.
 
 
 
Overall, I am mad at dbrand, and do think they deserve to have their sponsorships to be paused for a while [as an indication of non-acceptance of the position]

The whole dbrand thing is bad, and honestly they should lose sponsorships over this.  The initial joke, while I don't think was racist, should have received an apology and immediate explanation about just making fun of anyones name that sounds like other things in English and had no intent to speak of someone's race.
 
The fact they didn't do this and double downed, while again not racist, shows an ignorance of what people who face racism and shows a reluctance to accept that how one reads the post could potentially be construed as racist.
  
The first joke, I wouldn't call it racist but rather them just being ignorant of the connotation.  [As a whole I'd say it's more of a massive culturally insensitive and massively disrespectful vs racist...although I view the level of culturally insensitive as being unacceptable as it can promote racism]
 
Poking fun at names isn't inherently racist, English speakers get their names poked fun at a lot as well, but if there is backlash one must learn of negative connotations and issue a formal apology with an explanation that about the intent and not realizing the connotation.  The part that makes this really bad though is their whole response, continuing on as a joke...and this is where I think the line is drawn and it's wildly culturally insensitive to the point.
 
 
Overall though, using someone's name as a characteristic of a person is I think problematic at it's heart.  While things like Willy as a name is made fun of, I think it hits different than lets say being named Karen and having someone address you as a "Karen"; as you are now characterizing who they are as a person based on their name.  For that I think dbrand, regardless of ethnicity, went overboard.
 
Boiling racism down to solely the color of someone's skin isn't I think right; rather it's about the ethnicity of things.  While not racism, Women weren't treated as equals until the 1920's [there are people still alive who existed in a time women couldn't vote].
 
Scottish and Irish people have been a target of other "white" people, being a natural red-head is still associated with being "soul-less".  The whole class system in the European world as well [which eventually got to the point of revolutions/toppling of monarchies].
 
I'm not trying to trivialize what people of color have endured, and continue to endure though, but the argument that "white people" are somehow more free-game for their name ignores that the majority of the population back even 200 - 300 years ago was somehow oppressed.
 
 
 
Overall, I am mad at dbrand, and do think they deserve to have their sponsorships to be paused for a while [as an indication of non-acceptance of the position]

Doesn't matter if it's the driver error or not...the fact is there is a large number of people who will NOT check that their side mirrors have been hit/nudged out of alignment prior to driving.  The fact is it happens and happens frequently enough that switching to digital mirrors WILL have an impact in that regards.
 
Again, you are assuming the mirrors are setup correctly.  There is also an abnormal amount of people who don't do shoulder checks...otherwise we would end up with a whole lot less accidents [my vehicle was totaled because a person didn't do a shoulder check/mirror check and just entered into my lane from a standstill]
 
In regards to the side repeater cameras, the most expensive would be if you have a wiring issue; but even then what's the probability of the electronics failing vs lets say having your side-mirror break off.  Of all people I know with Tesla's, I haven't seen a single one who has had an issue with the cameras not working...yet I do know 2 people who had their mirrors damaged in parking lots [presumably as people tried sliding by].  Also, as I mentioned it adds like 5 - 8% range; so it would greatly depend where you charge and how often you drive.
 
Things such as cameras aren't the ones that are raising the price though, as you said parking sensors [i.e. ultrasonics and radar].  Actually what is a great cost is all the "safety" features which actually have risen the cost of repairs.
 
Things such as ultra-sonic sensors placed on the bumpers and around the vehicle, along with designing it to crumple when it's in an accident to reduce injury are what's eating up a whole lot of the cost.  That I would say has little to do with the replacement of conventional parts, but to have the exacting standards placed on by the governments to have things such as forward collision warning.  The irony is that those features which also increase repair value also "decrease" the severity of accidents so the insurance pushed for a long time to have those as discounts.
 
As an example, if a current model Tesla gets into a fender bender [they replaced the ultra sonics with just using the cameras]...what needs to be replaced, the bumper assembly...the labor assembly would be relatively cheap...on a car with ultra sonics the labor costs become a whole lot more as now you need to do all the calibration, wiring, etc when you get into a small fender bender.  So overall the usage of cameras would lower the overall cost [vs ultra sonics].
 
While you are talking about "bin parts", the problem isn't necessarily the cost of the part [they range like $2-3 but $5 when sold commercially], but the fact that a mechanic has to go in remove all the sensors to remove the bumper, and then reassemble it and attach the sensors and do the initial calibration.
 
Then you get into the whole concept of crumple zones, where there has been a push to make lower speed collisions result in less injuries.  This push has made it so that more components get trashed when you get into an accident.
 
With cameras as well, specifically Tesla, with sentry mode [or even without it] it actually stores accidents on it's camera.  The reason I say this is that when you are in an accident it speeds things along a whole lot more when you are able to essentially use video as evidence.  It's easy to assess fault...and in the case of Tesla's as well the vehicle uses the cameras to detect evens and apply hard braking/turning to minimize impacts and tighten the seatbelts.
 
While I do get that there is potentially better education, I know plenty of people who went through their education and still are what I consider to be bad drivers.
 
It's overall I think a mentality vs actual skill [with concepts of like road rage/owning the road].  With that said as well, using a casualty rate isn't necessarily correct.
 
Most people quote the deaths per capita, vs deaths per milage.  When you factor in that, the number drops a lot.  Then you compare it to Canada, which has a very similar type of education as the US [although I do think ours is slightly more stringent, but still not required education] and the number becomes almost within statistical noise.
 
You also have to consider the different types of roads that are encountered, like highway driving accidents will cause a lot more deaths and general cities where you have pedestrians who literally jaywalk on busy 4 lane streets will also cause a lot more issues.
 
Nothing I've seen seems to suggest education is the driving factor in regards to the US numbers, rather I would hazard a guess that the types of roads being driven on and the overall attitude is what's the overall factor.  [Seriously, there are sections of the US where you can drive and there aren't any street lamps...it can be a bit scary only having your headlights lighting your way when the speed limit is 100+ km/hour]
 
 
 

Because you are phrasing and acting as though it's a final product and showing a lack of basic understanding of how SpaceX is engineering the thing.
 
Again it's the whole concept of development.  SpaceX could spend an 5 - 6 years simulating, doing closed door testing, etc to get to the same point they are now...or they can just go out and test it can get enough information to accelerate their development cycle.
 
It's like the whole concept of Waterfall vs Agile development; back in the day the massive firms would insist that Waterfall was the only proper method, and that agile would introduce bugs/shows a lack of understanding.  Lots now in the industry focus more on agile development because it produces the results faster and gets to a finished product so much sooner at less cost.
 
Ignorant statement showing that you don't know what you are talking about.  You want to say that it's because of lots of engines give PROOF of it by an actual rational argument how many engines failed it.  At the moment you just use an explosion as proof which isn't a proper rationalization of what is going on.
 
Here, let me break it down for you AGAIN:
 
IFT-1: Fire in engine bays, likely caused by hydraulic gimble system.  They flew knowing an explosion in the engine bay would take out neighboring engines though [they didn't want to retrofit their solution into it].  They flew the thing with 4 broken engines originally at liftoff.  Notice how those 4 engines didn't cause it to blow up on the pad and didn't abort the launch [although a 5th engine gone and it would have past the tolerance].

Eventually the fire got to the point it disabled the gimble system at which point termination was attempted.  So IFT-1 didn't have to do with more engines, it just had to do with fire prevention and using hydraulic fluid which becomes the fuel source.
 
IFT-2 booster: All engines fired perfectly, failed to properly relight because of fuel filter.  That would occur having single large engines as well.  So again not anything to do with lots of small engines.  More likely to do with the fact it's a 3600 ton mass where extreme forces are applied during a flip maneuver.
IFT-2 ship: Oxygen dump, which likely caused a fire in the hydraulic system again.  
 
 
They are exploding because they are trying to do things that really hasn't been done before and they are pushing their vehicles to the limits and at the same time flying hardware they know has faults but still flies it to gather more data about how it's flying [so they can make changes to future vehicles].
 
 
The chances of an engine exploding doesn't scale linearly with the number of engines when in relation to size.  Smaller engines are able to be produced more and tested/swapped out more when errors are present leading to a decreased chance of them exploding compared to a larger engine.  You get this benefit because they are able to manufacture like 360 engines in a year and test them all at extremes beyond what they will operate at and reject any that isn't performing right (or that fails).  If you can only make a few large engines though you don't have the luxury of testing them to the point where you might lose a few.  It is why Raptors will fail, but will fail in a less energetic fashion because they have already been pushed to an extreme that will not be met during flight.
 
Actually larger engines would mean you have larger pipes going to them, so when you shutdown the engine you get more of a liquid hammer than you would when you can shut-off smaller engines overtime.
 
Larger engines means more SPOF.  It's that simple.  If you want to keep claiming lots of engines = bad for Starship them actually try doing proper reasoning on WHY that amount of engines amounted to their failures...because again look above, notice how the reason for failures doesn't have to do with multiple engines.  In fact the IFT-2 ship and IFT-1 could likely be attributed directly to having a hydraulic controlled gimble. [IFT-3 had both systems electronic]
 
Again, like what I mentioning before, SpaceX is capable of over 10% of their engines during relight to fail and it will still be within it's capabilities.  If you use larger engines you knock the amount of engine failures down to 0% failures.

haha, I know right.
 
Don't forget 11 F-1 engines also would weigh an extra ~40 tonnes...so expected payload to orbit would be reduced by about 40 tonnes.
 
Also F-1 engines minimum thrust  at it's lowest can only be ~65%.  [1 M lbf where you got combustion instability, as per https://www.enginehistory.org/Rockets/RPE08.11/RPE08.11.shtml] Or roughly 4,448 kN.
Now here is just a bit of AI goodness then.
Mass of booster, without fuel is ~3,600,000kg [~* 9.8 to get kN]...to hover you need ~35,280 kN.
With F-1 you need 5.2 engines to match that weight (no acc./dec.).  That means you need to light at minimum 6 engines.
Now what is the max number of engines you can light to hover.  7.9, now the issue is 8 would produce too much thrust [also you wouldn't be running all engines a pure minimum].  So you end up with 7 engines max you could light.  Or 6 - 7 engines needed for a hover maneuver.
 
This is where the issue starts to come into play, which is similar to what Falcon 9 experiences (and why Falcon 9 does a suicide burn).
You could have a range of thrust with those 6 - 7 engines as follows: ~26,688 kN - ~47,390 kN.  Since the weight is 35,280 kN though the min it would be would be 35,280 - 47,390.
 
So you wouldn't want to light the minimum, but rather light the maximum...so lets say you light 7; and 1 fails to light.  You will have an imbalance in thrust from one side, so you need to reduce the power on the other engines (equal to 1 engines worth).  That means failing to light a single engine could cause the loss of vehicle.  Because the range is only 6 - 7 engines you effectively have no wiggle room when it comes to underperforming  or failed relights.
 
So a single engine relight will effectively end your mission (and larger engines have the same if not maybe more changes of failing).
 
Lets look at the Raptor engines now though, lets even assume for the calculation that it had the ~65% pitfall (although raptors can do at worst 50%, but lets assume 65% which is in F-1 argument favor).  That's 1,485 - 2,260 kN 
 
Min engines required, 15.6, so 16 engines.
Max engines possible, 35280 23.7 engines; so rounding down to 23 [remember in actuality, based on the true specs, they could have 30 engines and hover]
That means the min to max range is 16 - 23 engines with a usable range of: 23,760 - 51,980
 
Notice how it allows for an extra of ~4.6 mN of wiggle room.  Also note that you can lose ~7-8 engines of thrust before an issue...going like above that means you could lose 3 - 4 engines [with balancing out the load] and still maintain within acceptable range.
 
So Uta I think the above shows the point everyone is making, that you fail to see, more engines = better resiliency when things go wrong.  The booster is capable of returning with 4 engines failing (over 10% engine loss).  That is something a large engine is unable to do...in-fact large engines makes it worse in the sense that you lose a lot more fine grain control.

I don't idolize SpaceX people, but I'm calling YOU an ignorant person for making statements COUNTER to the SpaceX engineers with the truly crazy statement that you somehow know better than what was in the press release.  And the fact YOU are slagging profession.  We get it you are a theoretical person, your previous statements are still stupid theories that run counter to all the information that has been presented.  Your theory is equivalent of someone stating that the air is 99% oxygen, and people pointing to the nitrogen concentrations and you still stating that they are wrong and just a fanboy of the labs that ran the test.
 
You want to know the type of person Sabine is though, she's the type who lacks AWARENESS in the computer science field, presents the information anyways, and lacks integrity to correct her mistake.  Case in point, she confuses petabit with petabyte [literally in her thumbnail and title she uses the word byte instead of bits], for the first few days the video existed the top comments were all about her usage of bits and bytes almost interchangeably; and still no correction.  Talks about encryption on AI, yet is ignorant of the fact the way LLM's work [and similar advanced AI networks] mostly require non-encrypted information because it's not just simple transforms on encrypted data...the data itself needs to effectively almost "fit" a certain pattern and reasoning basis off the data it sees [I'm not going more into this because I'll start running up against a NDA, but processing on encrypted data would yield worse results and a whole lot less useful insights]
 
The point is stop holding up Sabine as though she is some sort of fixture, she makes mistakes and worse yet when she does make major mistakes in a topic she doesn't readily correct them.
 
After all you are the person making the kind of statement
  
So again, your education means nothing if you are conceited enough to believe your word of SpaceX.
 
Please at least THINK before you try responding with something like this; because I'm getting tired of having to point out flaws in your silly theories
 
Falcon 9 uses smaller engines compared to Starship.
 
Falcon 9 has to use a suicide burn because it can't perform a hover maneuver.  In fact, if they don't light it/shutoff at the correct time it will either crash land or if it lands and doesn't shut off in time it will actually start flying again.
 
Again, if you read anything at all and actually comprehended what was said you will notice that the landing burn required would be a lot harder with large engines (because you won't be able to get the control needed AND you will be generating too much power).
 
You say it's an easier solution, but do you understand.  What evidence do you present because so far the engines you keep going on about weren't the root cause of the failure.  A lot of the failures have stemmed from the fact that the Starship is the largest thing ever to take flight and with that comes a learning curve...but again the engines weren't the problem.
 
IFT-1, actually would have been a scrub (as 4 engines weren't available at launch time, but they decided to fly anyways).  Had it been larger engines it would have been a scrub, and we would have had to wait longer.  Engines going out on IFT-1 and it was still able to fly for a longer period of time. [Actually larger engines would have resulted in less data]...actually had they switched to electronic gimbling [which they were going to switch to anyways] it's very likely we would have seen the flip maneuver occur and starship get to the Karman line.
 
IFT-2 , engines not the fault, "complex" plumbing (which really it's pretty simple plumbing) wasn't the issue, it was a blocked filter in the main tank which has nothing to do with many smaller engines as you still would need a similar design to the tank with a few engines and for the starship it was the oxygen dump (along with the hydraulic fire again).
 
So using larger engines isn't the easier solution.  ESPECIALLY since you can't seem to get it through your mind the GOAL IS NOT GET INTO SPACE.  It's GET INTO SPACE AT A LOW COST.  You are missing a great qualifier to the requirements.  You cannot easily create a large engine at a low cost.  Larger engines means a whole lot more specialized equipment, more road closures, slower replacement times, higher cost of manufacturing, higher minimum thrust [which is bad when trying to land the thing], and greater risk of a SPOF.
 
Because you label anyone who gives you a problem as SpaceX fans...seriously, go to all the people you work with and ask them to come here and back you up then in your assessment.  Or perhaps, just perhaps stop making asinine statements that are false.
 
They are doing something new and never done before.  They literally brought ~5000 TONNES of mass into space.  Starship is also only the second methalox ship ever to fly into orbit.  The simple fact is it is attempting to do things never done before.  Starship created the largest mach diamonds ever as well [with the 33 engines all combining together to create giant mach diamonds]
 
Your video you posted about Aerospike, did you ever even watch it?  Here's a hint, Tory Bruno (ULA) talked about heat issues and such, Musk talked about not getting enough performance increase vs optimizing (keeping a simpler design), RocketLabs talking about the pricings and added complexity in engineering, and Vector Aerospace talked about the added weight/parts needed to do it pretty much offset the benefits.  So ultimately you have 4 companies that looked into it, and they all came to similar conclusions that it's not worth pursuing at the moment because the benefits don't outweigh the risks.

As I also mentioned earlier, it's maybe not even about simplifying the manufacturing process but rather the practicality of the manufacturing process.
 
The cooling channels in the rocket main combustion chamber were effectively electroplated on.  The old school method was to create the inner portion, then use wax to fill up the channels and then electroplate to build up like a CM of metal surrounding it.
 
This wasn't used on the Saturn V however, but was used later on on things like the shuttle.
 
The Saturn V though, it used pipes to do it iirc, and at that stage it's about the validation required for each engine would take an inordinate amount of time if it was used...since to create 1 large engine it would be overall simpler to do the process a single time [and the benefit that the more volume gave a better weight to thrust ratio]...either way though both of these methods are obsolete with the advent of modern manufacturing process.
 
SmarterEveryDay's method lacks the awareness of modern rocketry, falls prey to hindsight, and is just as unrealistic as the current timeline is.
 
e.g. The SLS was one of those "playbooks" that congress ate up.  It was meant to be old proven technology that would save money and only cost $10 billion to make, be ready by 2015 and cost $500 million to launch.  It has cost over $23 billion, didn't launch until late 2022, and estimated at maybe upwards of $5 billion per launch [but probably at least $1 billion].
 
As I stated before as well, some of the documents he pointed to would have been classified at the time. There are mission updates, but the public isn't privvy to listening and seeing them.  They already have the testing underway for the starship to Orion dock being tested [and a prototype built]
 
Apollo also existed in the time when the peak budget was ~5%, which today no one would accept that kind of budget today.  Do you know why we stopped going to the moon?  Because it was too expensive to keep the Saturn V running and operating missions.  NASA is setting to accomplish this without breaking the bank, so no the "playbook" is not the same playbook.  The playbook this time is a sustainable mission to the moon.
 
If the Starship isn't ready for Artemis it won't be the fault of SpaceX, but instead it's the pencil pushers who decided to set a public target date that is unrealistic with the actual mission objectives.  It's the whole, don't start a bidding processing on something with only 3 years lead time.
 
Again, the SLS is the prime example of this kind of mentality, it was supposed to have missions by 2015 but didn't.  The Orion capsule was supposed to be in service in 2015 but wasn't.  The old playbook has failed.
 
No need to try making this into a discussion on politics.  The moon is an international body, and the whole combativeness of this country that country etc only leads to additional conflicts.  Space should not be an us vs them mentality, which is what you seem to be pushing

Seriously, learn to read and have an ounce of comprehension and honestly the way you proclaim your education you are much like ThunderF00t ego stroking.
 
I know master level computer science major who worked at Google who I talked to about Waymo before...his response to it was talking about the trolley problem and he seriously was considering that that was an important part of programming it [in the literal sense he had no knowledge of how self driving technology actually worked]
I had a prof who was pretty much illiterate when it came to using a computer, but he taught algorithm design.
I know CCNA's who deployed networks, and I had to come in and correct them on their mistakes [in one case having to show a POC that I wrote proving their setup didn't match the specifications].
 
General education, or even education in a field DOES NOT mean they are knowledgeable in aspects of the field...actually it can be worse in that you could have a very narrow field of focus.
 
Again, I said "lacks the AWARENESS of modern rocketry".  He didn't follow the rocketry and missions up to the point where he was asked to talk with them.
 
He pretty much admits it himself, that he wasn't even aware that it would require in-space refueling.  You can tell that his calculations on burn off are also off, more likely using early numbers of what Starship might have required to launch...because while the statement was 6, he talked about 12 (just still hinted he thought it was more).  Even at a boil off of 20%, the v3 Starship will hypothetically need a max of 6 ships.  Assuming 12 ships would assume a boil-off of roughly 50%.
 
The issue like above is exactly why someone who can have a higher educational background can be wrong when they lack the awareness of their current subject.  Again he's pulling papers and looking at things with hindsight knowledge of the inner workings of Apollo.
 
Degrees and "credentials" in the form of education don't mean anything you ignorant person.
 
It's logic 101, I've made claims, claims that are verifiable that can be tested against; I've made guesses of outcomes that are closer to what turned out to reality than you.
 
But hey you are the one who is to thick to realize your education doesn't mean a thing when you make stupid statements like [fuel slosh is why they never made orbit] and your stupid bits where you somehow think you are better than the people WHO WORK AT SPACEX..
 
To only rely on education merits as a standard is just stupid.

Fun fact, side mirrors can increase EV range 2 - 9% in some cases.  [Some people estimate for Tesla vehicles it's around 6%]
 
EV's and their range are greatly dependent on aerodynamics.
 
So even if you use side mirrors as an example, it doesn't mean you don't want to minimize it as much as you can elsewhere.  While the handles might only make up for a small percent, every bit ends up helping [even if it was 0.5% extra range, that's an extra $5 for every $1000 spent on electricity]
 
As an fyi, Tesla has wanted to get rid of side mirrors and just use their repeater cameras as alternatives for years now, but NHTSA has pretty much disallowed it and makes it a requirement.
 
Not necessarily true, some of the cameras being deployed in vehicles now are better than you could see at night-time.  In cases like that digital is better than the optical equivalent mirror.  Also the cameras can offer a better range of view than conventional mirrors for the blind-spots

It's JOKING ABOUT sexual harassment.  Can you please open read what everyone is saying and stop dropping the important concepts of what people are trying to explain to you.
 
It's like joking about a genocide; it doesn't make it a genocide...but joking about it can still have damage as it can trivialize what people actually have gone through.
 
In this case JOKING about sexual harassment, trivializes all those people who actually had what they have implied happen to them.
 
Seriously put yourself in woman's shoes who has gone to a workplace function and been actively hit on, attempted kissing, sexually glorified etc. only to be told that the person was drunk and actions wouldn't be taken.  Joking about such things trivializes what actual victims are going through.  Again, it's like me joking about the genocides going on and then people coming in saying it's not really genocide or that it's just a joke.
 
I'll say it again, trivializing sexual harassment/assault is part of the problem when it comes to sexual harassment.
 
The thing about sexual assaults/harassments as well is that barring witnesses or the person admitting to it it rarely is able to be actually prosecuted.
 
Alex Jones was successfully sued for $1.5 billion dollars for his so called "conspiracies".  No clue why you think he's a good example to make your case.

Not how it would really work though.
 
You can pick and choose the start and end time for a particular show...so there are 6 possible options for a particular TV show.  If you have 1000 customers you don't need to save the 1000 VOD's for an individual show, instead you just need to store the 6 possible ones.
 
Ultimately they could actually do something where they keep all the shows broadcast cached and still likely be under that limit....and honestly a few petabytes wouldn't cost too much considering their revenue and profit stream

Except it was at the level where it should be on their radar being a social media company, not just some random person.  The guy literally was in some Mr Beast stuff, there were multiple larger Twitch people who talked about it [and took sides], and even some of the people they collabed with before have talked about it.
 
And yea, the Madison thing as well also is another thing.
 
It's not just low level comedy like 69 jokes, or someone having a small appendage, instead it's a joke about twisting what consent is followed by a joke when pair with it that implies sexual assault [when you consider that it's a trope used often for workplace party harassment].
 
It's something real that happens, and something that when made into a joke takes away from the real world examples of when it happens.  The fact is these types of jokes keep the perpetuation that it's somehow almost acceptable to use it as an excuse [I know it's a joke that's technically counter] ...add in the fact that LMG has been publicly accused of it and is still undergoing a 3rd party review and yes it should be gatekept.
 
Remember, we are living in an age where that joke is actually used as an excuse AND accepted by some people.
 
  
LMG is the biggest in the tech space though, where their focus isn't on these kinds of jokes, and at that there should be certain standards that are upheld.
 
I'm all for not complaining about 69 jokes, or themselves being targets of jokes within their videos; but there is a line drawn to when it's about topics that have real world impacts and fuel the common excuse used by a perpetrator...especially when the company itself has been formerly accused with the investigation still going on.
 
The thing about South Park and Monty Python, there was a lot that was meant to offend/toe the line; and those watching it knew that and sought out that.

You landed spot on the "didn't watch, but have opinion on content" bin. This was on Techlinked, not WAN. There's huge difference. One is scripted and edited, the other is live streamed. On WAN some things can be accepted as oopsies, like the hard R discussion, since it's live. But this had script which was read from prompter with scripted interaction and went through whole quality control process.
 
Usually this is also my talking point. But here I argue against it. If the point of LMG channels would be to make suggestive and offensive jokes for adult audience, then sure. But it's not what they do generally. It's entertainment to teens and young adults. Of your examples, South Park was/is mainly 18+ in Canada.
 
*sigh*
It's not sexual harassment as is. It's joking about such. Similarly as saying "if this doesn't work, I'm gonna kill myself" is not threat of self-harming, but joking about it. Both are cringe, and something hardly needed to make news entertaining.

It wasn't a "that's what she said" joke though; it was a joke about infidelity and getting consent, followed up with a joke about sleeping with people while drunk [which is a massive trope of unwanted office place advances of the "drunk" person making unwanted sexual advances].  Again, WHAT they are joking about is literally in the media regarding a YouTube who is accused of pretty much getting drunk with someone and touching her without consent.
 
If you think laughing/making jokes about someone who just died [re:OceanGate]; where a kid who didn't want to go on died because they were pressured into it then you are just disgusting individual.
 
Simple fact is, lots of people who have watched this come off with the concept that it's sexual harassment and many feel the drunk joke is going to far.
 
You lack awareness then.  100% a joke about not getting proper consent from a wife, followed up with a joke that is a trope for SA defense makes it a joke about sexual assault.
 
It's like if I make a joke about genocide, and then switch to a different joke about a race; the context of having a joke sitting right before without an interlude still implies a continuance.