NPR

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 1:37 pm

PornDog wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 12:42 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 11:03 am My only experience of Ketamine was at a festival when someone was just about to give me some to try when a guy dropped to his knees and started howling at the moon which lasted for about 2 hours. Decided that probably wasn't the best use of my time.

Can't say I have any experience of it either, but I've seen enough people gurning away while off their face on ecstasy, and it looks just like that!

Slick wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 1:45 pm

PornDog wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 12:42 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 11:03 am My only experience of Ketamine was at a festival when someone was just about to give me some to try when a guy dropped to his knees and started howling at the moon which lasted for about 2 hours. Decided that probably wasn't the best use of my time.

Can't say I have any experience of it either, but I've seen enough people gurning away while off their face on ecstasy, and it looks just like that!

Quite a different experience I, er, understand

robmatic wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 3:05 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 1:45 pm

PornDog wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 12:42 pm

Can't say I have any experience of it either, but I've seen enough people gurning away while off their face on ecstasy, and it looks just like that!

Quite a different experience I, er, understand

My friend once took two ketamine pills by accident in a techno club and was very confused.

robmatic wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 3:05 pm

Slick wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 1:45 pm

PornDog wrote: Fri Jun 06, 2025 12:42 pm

Can't say I have any experience of it either, but I've seen enough people gurning away while off their face on ecstasy, and it looks just like that!

Quite a different experience I, er, understand

My friend once took two ketamine pills by accident in a techno club and was very confused.

dpedin wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 8:00 am I wonder what sort of dirt Trump has on Musk to get his silence? Or did he just threaten him with deportation? Perhaps Musk should steer well clear of any windows above ground level?

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 10:07 am

dpedin wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 8:00 am I wonder what sort of dirt Trump has on Musk to get his silence? Or did he just threaten him with deportation? Perhaps Musk should steer well clear of any windows above ground level?

Money. It's always about money. Musk won't want Trump to unilaterally cancel his government contracts.

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 10:07 am

dpedin wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 8:00 am I wonder what sort of dirt Trump has on Musk to get his silence? Or did he just threaten him with deportation? Perhaps Musk should steer well clear of any windows above ground level?

Money. It's always about money. Musk won't want Trump to unilaterally cancel his government contracts.

fishfoodie wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 2:35 pm

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 10:07 am

dpedin wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 8:00 am I wonder what sort of dirt Trump has on Musk to get his silence? Or did he just threaten him with deportation? Perhaps Musk should steer well clear of any windows above ground level?

Money. It's always about money. Musk won't want Trump to unilaterally cancel his government contracts.

Or he could just do what he did last term, & use various Government Agencies to harass Musk & shutdown his businesses.

The SEC have a half dozen cases pending, the IRS would love to go over his books, the EPA, the NHTSA, etc, etc, & if you think the fraud up in Canada before they pulled the EV credits was unique, I've a bridge for sale !

All of Musks net worth is in his companies, if you pull the rug out from under them, his net worth disappears !

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 3:21 pm

fishfoodie wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 2:35 pm

Sandstorm wrote: Wed Jun 11, 2025 10:07 am

Money. It's always about money. Musk won't want Trump to unilaterally cancel his government contracts.

Or he could just do what he did last term, & use various Government Agencies to harass Musk & shutdown his businesses.

The SEC have a half dozen cases pending, the IRS would love to go over his books, the EPA, the NHTSA, etc, etc, & if you think the fraud up in Canada before they pulled the EV credits was unique, I've a bridge for sale !

All of Musks net worth is in his companies, if you pull the rug out from under them, his net worth disappears !

All that is true, but there hundreds of pension & investment companies - not to mention Republican donors - who have trillions tied up in Musk's companies. Smashing them apart with make a lot of rich people less rich....and that can't happen!!

The company also maintains autopilot is designed to make driving safer, but in the US, Tesla has been sued over several deadly crashes in which the system was enabled.

The Elon Musk run company has reportedly settled some of these cases but not admitted to any wrongdoing, citing driver error.

Last month Tesla shared a video on social media showing an apparent test drive of its semi-autonomous system on Melbourne's streets, and said not even hook turns were a problem.
Thousands join Australian class action

Following a US consumer lawsuit over phantom braking, about 10,000 Tesla drivers in Australia have registered their interest in a class action against the company.

The case began in the Federal Court last month, claiming that Australian consumers were misled over phantom braking, battery range and self-driving capability.


"The issues that have been reported to us are that vehicles can be driving along on the highway at 100 or 110kph and all of a sudden the brakes are applied suddenly and without reason," class action lawyer, Rebecca Jancauskas told 7.30.

Starship is an unmitigated failure — that much we all know by now. But most people still don’t understand the full extent of what a terrible failure Starship actually is. At the time of writing, SpaceX has already spent approximately $10 billion on Starship and hasn’t even managed to reach proper orbit, let alone deliver any payload to space. For comparison, NASA’s Saturn V rocket, which was designed and built using more expensive and less accurate old-school analogue technology, cost roughly $6.4 billion to develop, and the launch costs were approximately $1.4 billion in today’s dollars. In other words, for the same amount of cash that Musk has splashed on creating a rocket that doesn’t work, NASA was able to send astronauts to lunar orbit using technology from the 1960s. And, even more embarrassingly for Musk, this sorry saga is only going to get worse. You see, SpaceX recently announced the cause of Starship’s spectacular failure during its most recent test flight, as well as detailing how they plan to solve this problem, which has exposed just how horribly flawed the Starship concept is.

To fully explain these issues, we need to rewind the clocks back to mid-January when Starship’s previous failed test flight, flight 7, was launched. Like all the other attempts, this test failed, with the upper stage disintegrating before it could deliver its dummy payload to orbit. Sure, the Super Heavy Booster was able to land, but this isn’t particularly impressive when you consider that landing the Booster is the easiest part of reentry because the Booster never leaves the atmosphere — not to mention that it has significantly less kinetic energy than the upper stage during landing as a result of its much lower speeds, making the process even easier. Moreover, this flight only had a 20-tonne dummy payload, which is just 13% of what Starship is designed for. This allowed both the Booster and upper stage to be lighter, as they required far less fuel, and the rocket engines were less stressed, as less thrust was needed.

Then how did test flight 7 fail? Well, excessive harmonic vibrations ruptured the fuel lines, creating a gigantic fire that destroyed the entire upper stage mid-flight. This occurred despite the reduced stress placed on the engines and structure itself. Even worse, test flights 7 and 8 were launched using an improved version of Starship, featuring redesigned and strengthened fuel lines to prevent these failures from occurring.

So, why did this solution not work? Well, Starship has a huge thrust problem. Musk and his engineers overestimated the amount of thrust their Raptor engine could produce while designing the Starship. Even Musk himself has publicly stated that Starship can only take less than 50% of its promised payload to orbit, which is likely an overestimate. This means they are forced to cut down on as much of the craft’s weight as possible and push the engines to the limit during launches. Unfortunately, this makes the rocket more fragile and means the engines generate excessive heat and vibrations — which is a perfect recipe for guaranteed failure.

For SpaceX’s next test flight in March, which will be its eighth and most recent test flight as of the time of writing, it has attempted to solve these problems by reinforcing structural joints and fitting a more capable fire suppression system. However, this added weight has forced the dummy payload to be reduced down to eight tonnes, which is a mere 5% of Starship’s designed payload. And even still, this improvement wasn’t enough, as Starship blew up spectacularly mid-flight, just like before.

At the time, the cause of this failure was apparent to me and many others. It’s obvious SpaceX can’t make Starship robust enough to survive the thrust required for a fraction of its payload without dramatically increasing its weight and, therefore, reducing its payload to nothing. Back then, it was just speculation. But it’s not just speculation now.

On the eve of Starship’s 9th test flight, SpaceX finally revealed what happened during flight 8. A “flash” event occurred in one of the rocket’s engines, causing it to fail (or, more accurately, explode) and take out the other engines in the process. This led to the rocket tumbling uncontrollably and disintegrating in the atmosphere.

A flash is when a rocket’s propellant ignites when it shouldn’t, creating a sudden explosion. This can be caused by many things: a fuel leak igniting; an incomplete fuel and oxidiser mix that retards the engine; rapid pressure changes that disrupt the correct flow of fuel and propellant; or even overheating, causing combustion in the wrong places. However, SpaceX has stated that “the most probable root cause for the loss of Starship was identified as a hardware failure in one of the upper stage’s center Raptor engines.” This heavily suggests a fuel leak or an overheating problem, which can be caused by building these engines too light and fragile or pushing them too hard — which all but confirms my and many others’ speculations.

Flight 8 is damning evidence that these engines are being exerted beyond their natural limits and are still incapable of producing enough thrust, as well as that Starship is simultaneously far too heavy and far too fragile to actually function. This is a fatal catch-22 that is baked into the core design of Starship. The concept would only work if the Raptor engines were able to produce the unrealistically high amount of thrust Musk previously claimed, and they simply can’t.

So, how does SpaceX address this issue? Well, with an updated engine: the Raptor 3. This engine is simpler, 7% lighter and has 21% more thrust than the current Raptor 2. Surely, that should solve all these problems, right?

Well, no. First of all, Musk has lied about Raptor’s thrust before, meaning that his claim of “21% more thrust” is seriously dubious. But also, the engine being 7% lighter and having a 21% increase in thrust isn’t nearly enough to increase Starship’s payload to usable levels.

What is more concerning is the method SpaceX used to made this engine so light and powerful. By modifying how the fuel flows, they have improved the engine’s internal cooling needs and supposedly eliminated the requirement for external heat shields and a fire suppression system. As a result, they have elected to remove these components, which has made it possible to save this amount of weight. Furthermore, the improved cooling will supposedly enable them to push the engine harder, creating the aforementioned 21% increase in thrust.

In other words, the current engines are being pushed too hard, causing them to fail from fuel leak fires and excessive heat, which has happened so consistently that no Starship has even survived a trip to space with a fraction of its proposed payload onboard. Yet somehow, the natural solution is to ditch the engine’s heat shields and fire suppression systems? That decision alone would be silly, but to then also push these engines 21% harder makes this entire proposal utterly moronic. Even if we assume the Raptor 3 engines have genuinely solved the overheating issue (which is highly unlikely) and can be pushed 21% harder, that doesn’t mean they won’t experience flashes and subsequent total failure.

More thrust will create more vibrations and stress, causing fuel leaks (especially if the lines aren’t further enforced), incorrect fuel mixing, and unstable internal pressure. All of these factors can then create flashes, which overheat the engines and quickly develop into huge explosive fires, which will be even more catastrophic than before, as these engines have no heat shields or fire suppression systems.

So, in short, Raptor 3 won’t actually solve the problem plaguing Starship.

Now, by the time you read this, SpaceX will likely have conducted its ninth test flight, and because it still uses the Raptor 2 engines and has a dummy payload of 16 tonnes, it will likely fail in exactly the same manner flights 7 and 8 did. It’s not just me claiming that, as the FAA has doubled the size of the vehicle’s Aircraft Hazard Area.

However, even if they somehow get Starship to safely return and conduct a soft landing, they are still far, far, far from creating a successful rocket. It’s nowhere near reliable enough to be operational and currently has such a tiny payload that SpaceX’s own Falcon 9 significantly outperforms it in both price and payload (read more here). But, more importantly, the way SpaceX is trying to develop Starship is utterly foolish. It shows they are trapped in a catch-22 with no viable way out and are just throwing random stuff at the walls, praying something sticks. This isn’t how engineering works, and it isn’t pioneering. All it is is a waste of US taxes to stroke the ego of a pathetic, lying, wannabe Nazi.

Hellraiser wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2025 8:12 am

Starship is an unmitigated failure — that much we all know by now. But most people still don’t understand the full extent of what a terrible failure Starship actually is. At the time of writing, SpaceX has already spent approximately $10 billion on Starship and hasn’t even managed to reach proper orbit, let alone deliver any payload to space. For comparison, NASA’s Saturn V rocket, which was designed and built using more expensive and less accurate old-school analogue technology, cost roughly $6.4 billion to develop, and the launch costs were approximately $1.4 billion in today’s dollars. In other words, for the same amount of cash that Musk has splashed on creating a rocket that doesn’t work, NASA was able to send astronauts to lunar orbit using technology from the 1960s. And, even more embarrassingly for Musk, this sorry saga is only going to get worse. You see, SpaceX recently announced the cause of Starship’s spectacular failure during its most recent test flight, as well as detailing how they plan to solve this problem, which has exposed just how horribly flawed the Starship concept is.

To fully explain these issues, we need to rewind the clocks back to mid-January when Starship’s previous failed test flight, flight 7, was launched. Like all the other attempts, this test failed, with the upper stage disintegrating before it could deliver its dummy payload to orbit. Sure, the Super Heavy Booster was able to land, but this isn’t particularly impressive when you consider that landing the Booster is the easiest part of reentry because the Booster never leaves the atmosphere — not to mention that it has significantly less kinetic energy than the upper stage during landing as a result of its much lower speeds, making the process even easier. Moreover, this flight only had a 20-tonne dummy payload, which is just 13% of what Starship is designed for. This allowed both the Booster and upper stage to be lighter, as they required far less fuel, and the rocket engines were less stressed, as less thrust was needed.

Then how did test flight 7 fail? Well, excessive harmonic vibrations ruptured the fuel lines, creating a gigantic fire that destroyed the entire upper stage mid-flight. This occurred despite the reduced stress placed on the engines and structure itself. Even worse, test flights 7 and 8 were launched using an improved version of Starship, featuring redesigned and strengthened fuel lines to prevent these failures from occurring.

So, why did this solution not work? Well, Starship has a huge thrust problem. Musk and his engineers overestimated the amount of thrust their Raptor engine could produce while designing the Starship. Even Musk himself has publicly stated that Starship can only take less than 50% of its promised payload to orbit, which is likely an overestimate. This means they are forced to cut down on as much of the craft’s weight as possible and push the engines to the limit during launches. Unfortunately, this makes the rocket more fragile and means the engines generate excessive heat and vibrations — which is a perfect recipe for guaranteed failure.

For SpaceX’s next test flight in March, which will be its eighth and most recent test flight as of the time of writing, it has attempted to solve these problems by reinforcing structural joints and fitting a more capable fire suppression system. However, this added weight has forced the dummy payload to be reduced down to eight tonnes, which is a mere 5% of Starship’s designed payload. And even still, this improvement wasn’t enough, as Starship blew up spectacularly mid-flight, just like before.

At the time, the cause of this failure was apparent to me and many others. It’s obvious SpaceX can’t make Starship robust enough to survive the thrust required for a fraction of its payload without dramatically increasing its weight and, therefore, reducing its payload to nothing. Back then, it was just speculation. But it’s not just speculation now.

On the eve of Starship’s 9th test flight, SpaceX finally revealed what happened during flight 8. A “flash” event occurred in one of the rocket’s engines, causing it to fail (or, more accurately, explode) and take out the other engines in the process. This led to the rocket tumbling uncontrollably and disintegrating in the atmosphere.

A flash is when a rocket’s propellant ignites when it shouldn’t, creating a sudden explosion. This can be caused by many things: a fuel leak igniting; an incomplete fuel and oxidiser mix that retards the engine; rapid pressure changes that disrupt the correct flow of fuel and propellant; or even overheating, causing combustion in the wrong places. However, SpaceX has stated that “the most probable root cause for the loss of Starship was identified as a hardware failure in one of the upper stage’s center Raptor engines.” This heavily suggests a fuel leak or an overheating problem, which can be caused by building these engines too light and fragile or pushing them too hard — which all but confirms my and many others’ speculations.

Flight 8 is damning evidence that these engines are being exerted beyond their natural limits and are still incapable of producing enough thrust, as well as that Starship is simultaneously far too heavy and far too fragile to actually function. This is a fatal catch-22 that is baked into the core design of Starship. The concept would only work if the Raptor engines were able to produce the unrealistically high amount of thrust Musk previously claimed, and they simply can’t.

So, how does SpaceX address this issue? Well, with an updated engine: the Raptor 3. This engine is simpler, 7% lighter and has 21% more thrust than the current Raptor 2. Surely, that should solve all these problems, right?

Well, no. First of all, Musk has lied about Raptor’s thrust before, meaning that his claim of “21% more thrust” is seriously dubious. But also, the engine being 7% lighter and having a 21% increase in thrust isn’t nearly enough to increase Starship’s payload to usable levels.

What is more concerning is the method SpaceX used to made this engine so light and powerful. By modifying how the fuel flows, they have improved the engine’s internal cooling needs and supposedly eliminated the requirement for external heat shields and a fire suppression system. As a result, they have elected to remove these components, which has made it possible to save this amount of weight. Furthermore, the improved cooling will supposedly enable them to push the engine harder, creating the aforementioned 21% increase in thrust.

In other words, the current engines are being pushed too hard, causing them to fail from fuel leak fires and excessive heat, which has happened so consistently that no Starship has even survived a trip to space with a fraction of its proposed payload onboard. Yet somehow, the natural solution is to ditch the engine’s heat shields and fire suppression systems? That decision alone would be silly, but to then also push these engines 21% harder makes this entire proposal utterly moronic. Even if we assume the Raptor 3 engines have genuinely solved the overheating issue (which is highly unlikely) and can be pushed 21% harder, that doesn’t mean they won’t experience flashes and subsequent total failure.

More thrust will create more vibrations and stress, causing fuel leaks (especially if the lines aren’t further enforced), incorrect fuel mixing, and unstable internal pressure. All of these factors can then create flashes, which overheat the engines and quickly develop into huge explosive fires, which will be even more catastrophic than before, as these engines have no heat shields or fire suppression systems.

So, in short, Raptor 3 won’t actually solve the problem plaguing Starship.

Now, by the time you read this, SpaceX will likely have conducted its ninth test flight, and because it still uses the Raptor 2 engines and has a dummy payload of 16 tonnes, it will likely fail in exactly the same manner flights 7 and 8 did. It’s not just me claiming that, as the FAA has doubled the size of the vehicle’s Aircraft Hazard Area.

However, even if they somehow get Starship to safely return and conduct a soft landing, they are still far, far, far from creating a successful rocket. It’s nowhere near reliable enough to be operational and currently has such a tiny payload that SpaceX’s own Falcon 9 significantly outperforms it in both price and payload (read more here). But, more importantly, the way SpaceX is trying to develop Starship is utterly foolish. It shows they are trapped in a catch-22 with no viable way out and are just throwing random stuff at the walls, praying something sticks. This isn’t how engineering works, and it isn’t pioneering. All it is is a waste of US taxes to stroke the ego of a pathetic, lying, wannabe Nazi.

Written three weeks ago.

The invitations confirm extreme limitations in the service, with the most significant one being the presence of a “safety monitor” in the passenger seat.

Here are the other requirements listed:

You must agree to Terms of Service, Rider Rules, Privacy Notice, and Service Animal Policy.
You must have a credit/debit card on file.
You can request a ride via the app from 6:00 AM to 12:00 AM, within the geofenced area (excluding airports).
Operational hours and geofence details are available in the app and may change.
Service may be limited or unavailable in inclement weather.
Only the invited user may download and use the Robotaxi app.
Participants must be courteous and respectful; unsafe or disrespectful behavior may lead to termination.
Riders should provide a star rating and feedback in the app.
Photos and videos of the experience are permitted.
Smoking, vaping, consuming alcohol, and using drugs are not permitted inside the Robotaxi.
Robotaxi may not be used in connection with any crime or to transport weapons or illegal/hazardous materials (e.g., flammable or combustible liquids).
Surveillance, reverse engineering, or recording of proprietary Robotaxi components or features is strictly prohibited.
Tesla may suspend or terminate access if:
You violate any of these rules.
You post or share content on social media that depicts misuse or violations inside the Robotaxi.

In short, Tesla’s “Robotaxi” service is going to launch with the supervision of Tesla employees in the front seat at all times. It’s limited to 6 am to 12 am and it doesn’t work in “inclement weather.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2025 12:12 pm "Participants must be courteous and respectful; unsafe or disrespectful behavior may lead to termination."

Killing people for not agreeing with Kafkaesque Ketamine Karen seems sadly on brand

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Sat Jun 21, 2025 12:12 pm "Participants must be courteous and respectful; unsafe or disrespectful behavior may lead to termination."

Killing people for not agreeing with Kafkaesque Ketamine Karen seems sadly on brand

You must agree to Terms of Service, Rider Rules, Privacy Notice, and Service Animal Policy.

Gumboot wrote: Thu Jun 19, 2025 8:21 pm He makes impressive fireworks.