> I've been thinking about this in art. Is it the end result that matters, or the process of creating it?
What is the "end result" you're talking about here?
Programs are complex beasts, you cannot just quickly look at them and get an idea of what's they are actually doing. You might look at the behavior of the program in some limited circumstances, but that will make you blind to all the other situations where bugs will likely hide! In the end a code review is looking at what the "end result" is, and it requires quite a lot of effort!
So without knowing what the end result is, how can you justify the effort for such code review? And that's where the process comes in, as an indicator of what to expect.
Others say that moderate load means a lifespan of ~5 years
Not sure what that means but I would assume that a datacenter will start replacing a node once the error rate hits a certain threshold without really investigating why it failed, so the practical lifespan may be shorter than 5 years even if it would technically still be usable enough
Many people think their claimed TAM is total fiction, and attempting an actual realistic TAM relies far more heavily on starlink. From morningstar:
> Our base-case forecast entails $56 billion in revenue for Starlink in these niche and growth areas by 2035, representing about 45% of the identifiable market we’ve sized
> Many people think their claimed TAM is total fiction, and attempting an actual realistic TAM relies far more heavily on starlink.
Then either the TAM for Starlink is ~20x bigger than reported by SpaceX (I doubt they would downplay themselves in such a way) or the whole SpaceX TAM is ~5x smaller (much more realistic, if not more than that)
I think the TAM for both is reasonable (it's just generic "Enterprise" stuff, at the end of the day), but I think Starlink is better able to capture a larger portion of its TAM.
> SpaceX is obviously majorly owned by Elon, but it’s also owned by regular employees, a bunch of private investors and other funds that regular people invest in.
Is it really owned by them if Elon retains most of the voting rights anyway?
Effectively it is solely owned by Elon and other people have an equity stake. This is another huge risk. You have to trust Elon not to get distracted and decide to hard pivot to something else.
Look at Tesla and their hard pivot to humanoid robots. He is all in on robots which about a dozen other companies already make and are largely unprofitable in making. He is betting AI rapidly improves in a way that allows robots to become rapidly more useful and there is zero evidence that is feasible in the next 5 - 10 years.
I am not sure if Texas law on the subject is well defined. The SpaceX materials make it clear their position on minority rights is "you have the right to trust Elon or not buy the stock"
I'm wanting to build pieces of software that I've been wanting and often working on for years. These new models are making it possible for me to scale my work to build it.
What is the "end result" you're talking about here?
Programs are complex beasts, you cannot just quickly look at them and get an idea of what's they are actually doing. You might look at the behavior of the program in some limited circumstances, but that will make you blind to all the other situations where bugs will likely hide! In the end a code review is looking at what the "end result" is, and it requires quite a lot of effort!
So without knowing what the end result is, how can you justify the effort for such code review? And that's where the process comes in, as an indicator of what to expect.
reply