this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
82 points (96.6% liked)
Excellent Reads
1524 readers
4 users here now
Are you tired of clickbait and the current state of journalism? This community is meant to remind you that excellent journalism still happens. While not sticking to a specific topic, the focus will be on high-quality articles and discussion around their topics.
Politics is allowed, but should not be the main focus of the community.
Submissions should be articles of medium length or longer. As in, it should take you 5 minutes or more to read it. Article series’ would also qualify.
Please either submit an archive link, or include it in your summary.
Rules:
- Common Sense. Civility, etc.
- Server rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
he did one test to determine if the hull could withstand the pressure, it failed, and then he says one data point inst enough to determine the integrity of the hull of of one failed data point.
Back when this incident first happened, there was a few articles posted that day, and someone posted a reply on one of the threads, but I'm too lazy to find it now.
Basically they said they worked at a university research lab where Rush was conducing pressurized testing on the capsule (seals and such). They'd conduct half a dozen tests in one day, have one "success" and Rush's team would call it a "success" and move on to the next test.
i remember seeing something to that effect as well. move fast and break things isnt a bad way to do things, til you put the lives of others on the line. making many iterative designs and testing them mightve proven him right long term, highly unlikely but whatever. instead he went with the first that would never have been safe.
Yeah man. That's what the other 50 tests would be for.
Some people genuinely think the world runs on who-says. He's a real smart guy - he asserts this is fine - therefore it must be. Anyone who disagrees is challenging him, and saying he's not smart, and that can't possibly be true because look how much money he has. This is the raw chest-beating tribal mindset that I think defines conservatism, as an innate human ideology. I understand why people in that loyalist mode are unconvinced by reasoned argument. I have no idea why allegedly rational outsiders in the critical mode keep trying anyway. The search for 'what loyalists really believe' is a category error.
They don't believe things - they believe people.