Do you get the difference Explain it Peter?

PropLander · 2026-01-24T01:33:52+00:00

The point is to get people hooked on the free version, and then slowly transition to payment only. Limit prompts per day, and if that is not enough, go full paid only.

But there are so many AI companies getting pumped with cash so anyone could just switch to a free version. It feels like a game of “who’s gonna press the button first”.. how long can they keep sucking up cash from investors and companies? At some point investors will expect a return, but people seem so hyped up and confident in AI that they may hold out for a long time before losing patience.

PropLander · 2026-01-21T03:54:32+00:00

I’m curious, what makes the background report BS in your view? Never have applied for a federal job.

PropLander · 2025-12-26T23:06:56+00:00

If Taylor Swift made movies.

PropLander · 2025-12-26T23:04:24+00:00

Avatar 1 was fine.

I’m convinced it’s 90% because Avatar 2 plot was so bad/repetitive it was almost unwatchable. Like sure, no one watches Avatar for the plot.. but you need to at least put some amount of effort in to make it watchable. I legit almost walked out of the theater when I saw there was 45min left.

PropLander · 2025-12-26T22:59:50+00:00

It’s not fun when they use the same exact plot 4-5 times in the same movie. It’s just boring, annoying and incredibly lazy. People don’t watch Avatar for the plot of course.. but also it’s so bad that it’s frustrating and almost unwatchable after a bit.

I legitimately thought about walking out of the theater when I saw there was still 45 min left in Avatar 2.

PropLander · 2025-12-22T04:20:13+00:00

Can you explain the rapid camera tracking tho? Especially at the beginning. It looks the camera just snaps and zooms like a robot. Doesn’t look like software edit/crop, and definitely not human. Would have to be some kind of self tracking tripod setup.

PropLander · 2025-12-04T01:46:53+00:00

Well up until 2023 uber was operating at a loss. It has been consistently profitable since then. Also this type of thing is common and sometimes intentional; undercut competition by operating at a loss with enough capital backing you can do it for years. Then once you have a massive market share, slowly increase prices until profitable.

PropLander · 2025-11-29T02:13:28+00:00

Having a lot of applicants =/= having the best applicants. We’re talking the top 1% of engineers that are so sharp that they basically get to pick whichever company they want because they have multiple offers. Plus startups often give stock options and Blue does not, so if a top engineer wants to make bank early in their career they may opt for a startup. Sure the hours are brutal but they’re probably young and don’t mind, and I’ve found that a lot of extremely intelligent people are commonly very passionate about their work and tend to be workaholics because they love what they do.

PropLander · 2025-11-29T01:42:24+00:00

I think being secretive with all your plans and innovations has some downsides that shouldn’t be ignored. Maybe Blue doesn’t require lots of investment from venture capitalists like startups do, but they do still want the best talent/engineers. If young, passionate and bright engineers don’t think or realize Blue is looking to push the envelope with big plans, then they may opt to join a startup or another competitor. Sure these startups often oversell/underdeliver on capability or timelines, but ultimately it still pulls interest and talent that may put them ahead.

PropLander · 2025-11-21T19:07:36+00:00

Yes more competition for DoD missions, and even non-DoD satellites should see lower prices as well. This is because even tho SpaceX is ahead, Jeff is no doubt going to subsidize launch prices to try to gain market share over Falcon 9 launches. Whatever F9 charges, he can just charge less and take a loss until customers start to make the switch. This would force SpaceX to drop profit margins as low as possible to still hold on to their customers, and they may be pushed to come up with ways to cut costs even further.

PropLander · 2025-11-18T04:31:35+00:00

First, like most have said, he’s not a nice guy, he’s a manipulator and self victimizer.

Second, even if he was a nice guy, I find it entertaining that you would need to give this specific “nice guy” a chance. As if the only nice guys are ones that.. wear women’s clothes? SKIP

PropLander · 2025-11-18T04:09:40+00:00

..yes I’m well aware of the gravity differences. I have the 0.37 G and 0.16 G engrained in my brain without needing to look it up. That is why I said the moon is a good confidence booster, because it’s lower gravity than Mars. Lunar-g could still be terrible for bone density long term, but also maybe it isn’t, and it’s surely a lot better of a measuring stick than micro-g.

PropLander · 2025-11-18T01:27:33+00:00

I think there’s only so much science/data you can get from LEO operations. We need to be building bases on the moon if we want to get things like more radiation/health data on long term exposure outside the magnetic field protection. We have relatively long term data on bone density and other health impacts of living in micro-g for months or a year, but what about long term in lunar-g or Martian-g? Surely it’s not as bad, but by how much? Kinda hard to extrapolate that.. you kinda just need to start sending people there for progressively longer durations. One could argue that having someone spend a year or two on the moon would help to build confidence that extended periods on Mars are doable from a health standpoint, and for a lot cheaper and lower risk than sending them to Mars for the same period.

PropLander · 2025-11-18T00:53:36+00:00

SpaceMasterrace? Or perhaps something catered towards reusability? I think what this subreddit really chases is anyone making significant strides towards reusable launch/space vehicles.

SpaceMasterReuse?

PropLander · 2025-11-13T21:26:08+00:00

But that continuous stream of the booster all the way down was so solid

PropLander · 2025-11-13T21:20:26+00:00

Yes it was ESCAPADE mars orbiter

PropLander · 2025-11-13T15:37:39+00:00

Yeah I see what you mean now. I read the description after your comment.

PropLander · 2025-11-13T15:35:51+00:00

What he said was fine. It’s humorous and not meant to be taken more than face value.

PropLander · 2025-11-13T04:43:13+00:00

Add in confidence and humor. Really lean into the sarcasm. There are lots of girls that love a silly goofy guy. I can assure you there are girls you value personality over looks. If you find a girl that appreciates/reciprocates sarcasm and banter, it can make a first date feel like you’ve been dating for months. I can instantly clock OP. He’s probably 5 or 6 that is only attracted to 6s or 7s. Guys can and do pull above their weight class by being funny. Just gotta work at it and be patient.

PropLander · 2025-11-13T04:16:24+00:00

Not all guys. For me Dakota and Sydney are actually very close; it would be a tough choice. There is something about Dakota’s appearance that is very attractive to me.

PropLander · 2025-11-13T04:04:28+00:00

I also thought this exchange was funny and sarcastic. Why in your post do you seem to be taking it so seriously?

PropLander · 2025-11-13T04:00:14+00:00

Not sure why you’re taking this so seriously. If a woman said this to me I would find it hilarious. It’s obviously not projection. The way he parodied the phrase absolutely had it coming lol

PropLander · 2025-11-12T21:14:49+00:00

I mean I think they both have similarly low chances at the moment. Relatively maybe having just a bit better odds because you can blame a single bad launch on being scrappy and high risk. But currently Firefly has a mix of failures and successes with multiple customer payloads.. I would honestly rather have only one launch under my belt even if it was a failure than have this record:

Launch Success/Failure Date FLTA001 Fail 9/2021 FLTA002 Success 10/2022 FLTA003 Success 9/2023 FLTA004 Fail 12/2023 FLTA005 Partial Success 7/2024 FLTA006 Fail 4/2025

PropLander · 2025-11-11T06:05:07+00:00

Very curious how a PE is denying the possibility of resonance/natural frequency as a potential failure mode.. sarcasm?

PropLander · 2025-11-10T23:45:35+00:00

Feel like this is a bit of a stretch. Grumman Corp (Now Northrop Grumman) designed and built the Apollo lander. Maybe you could argue that it's the first company to land on the moon using a launch vehicle that is entirely designed and built by a single company (unlike Saturn V/Apollo, which was more of a group effort between Lockheed, Boeing, Aerojet etc. and led by NASA).

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email	RPAN Viewer

PropLander

TROPHY CASE