Essentially, neoliberalism. The goal of everyone on the project is now higher and higher profits. Delivering a working product doesnt necessarily mean best profits anymore. Spacex would rather drag the project along with ships that dont work than to just make something that works. The government has privatized so much of their workload into so few specialized companies that they really can't stop them from doing this.
This is just nonsense. First of all, the companies in the 1960s were all there for profit and all made profit. And the politicians in power back then also tried to get contracts to companies in their districts. Why do you think the NASA control center is in Houston?
SpaceX is on a fixed price contract. Dragging the project along is literally costing them money.
By literally any analysis you can do, you will see that in the last 15 years SpaceX was by far and away (its not close) the best contractor to NASA in terms of delivering what NASA wanted.
In fact, by far and away the project that have done the worst, are the project NASA does in the old style where they remain the main designers and operate and only work with private companies as builders. That's exactly why SLS is such a shit-show.
It isn't a fixed-price contract. They've been granted multiple "milestone" extensions as well as new contracts for things they're not capable of, clearly. One thing is for sure, no matter what happens to the mission (it'll probably fail), Elon and his buddies will still get to scrape a couple hundred million for themselves while telling the rest of us we need to be "more hardcore" and preach more austerity bullshit.
Funnily enough, the person who decided to grant SpaceX this contract, Kathy Lueders, did so and then immediately decided to quit NASA and work for SpaceX. Nothing to see there.
>In fact, by far and away the project that have done the worst, are the project NASA does in the old style where they remain the main designers and operate and only work with private companies as builders. That's exactly why SLS is such a shit-show.
How could SLS, a rocket that literally worked the first time, be worse than Starship, a rocket that does not work?
>Creating a separate User (User folders are permission locked to their user by default, system binaries cannot be modified without admin access)
Common practice, and even encouraged by Windows itself, is having the administrator account be the only account. This misuse is a very common thread in Windows systems, and security breaches alike.
Windows has garbage defaults, but if you read through their documentation on enterprise architecture they definitely do not recommend having admin be the only account. They do in fact encourage separate accounts, multiple level of privileges with login restrictions across different types of machines, etc.
Many Linux distros are also guilty of this, disabling the root account by default and having the only user have sudo privileges, just like Windows.
Yes, however much more can be done in the user's own directory on Unix systems. Needing sudo raises some eyebrows, whereas most Windows users don't necessarily understand UAC, and almost never think twice about pressing "Yes" on the popups, which are seen more as an annoyance than something critical for safety. Some even completely disable UAC.
> Common practice, and even encouraged by Windows itself, is having the administrator account be the only account.
This hasn't been true since Vista. Kind of even before that with XP, it really showcased using multiple accounts to home users with a much more stylized user selection screen.
>Do the right thing, ditch the modern day equivalents of IBM collaborating with the enemies of freedom, human dignity, and human prosperity.
I think it needs to go a bit further than that. We need names, for purposes of blacklisting but also future prosecution. Collaborators should not be tolerated.
I'm sure it's not popular, but quite a few of our colleagues and fellow HN readers do belong in cells.
reply