I mean you can believe what you want but NTSB literally had a guy at a podium say into the mic last night that there is so far no evidence "the bolts were ever there", around the 17-18 minute mark if you have nothing better to do. Good luck with your investments.
NTSB are doing that lab work right now in Washington D.C.
You seem to not know the meaning of suspect, so here is the definition:
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
sus·pect
verb
3rd person present: suspects
/səˈspek(t)/
1.
have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof.
"if you suspect a gas leak, do not turn on an electric light"
I'm pretty sure if you personally drove a new car off the lot and the door fell off you would not believe that quality were unchanged from your prior impression of that car company.
Just because it's happening to other people doesn't make it okay to hand-wave away safety.
And by the way, so far NTSB believes it's not a fabrication error but an assembly error. NTSB suspects 4 bolts were never screwed in.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't believe in blaming the user for manufacturing and maintenance errors. I think that makes a bad programmer too, actually.
It is trivial to see how someone sitting there not seat belted could have perished. You do understand that long stretches of flight allow you to be unseatbelted right?
No, not usually. In my experience anyway, most random engineers in the semiconductor industry that you would run into who know both C and Verilog would be just using those tools to do their job. There is a lot of ECE stuff to unpack in your question, but the subfield of ECE in question is called VLSI. You'd want to talk to someone who works in VLSI, or did VLSI as their focus in ECE undergrad or grad school.
Yeah, sorry, I don't believe for a second that Russia has failed to maintain their only playing card. What a joke. US military industrial complex folks will make up any story to excuse their audit-free slovenly spending.
The country that is still launching the same platform for manned space that they did in the 50s can't figure out how to do that but with warheads -- doubt! Makes a good story though!
Actually no, it's not "as simple as that" when everyone except you doesn't take lunch hour and schedules meetings at noon. We have a right to the lunch hour.
Ok, I guess that's fair. Having worked at one of the large chip makers, I can tell you there are plenty of people who know C and Verilog, you just weren't talking to any of them. Those who need to do, and those who don't, don't. It's certainly an industry with high degree of specialization.
In particular, how is Boeing apparently exempt from antitrust? Shouldn't there be more than one large airliner manufacturer in North America? I guess regulators consider Airbus to be sufficient, but when each has its own government comfortably in its pocket, I'm skeptical.
Not only is this a strange opinion, that you want some kind of entity to decide whether or not each of our health conditions are at-fault, your analogy to car insurance isn't even true in no-fault states, of which there are many.
Right, I think people are misunderstanding a key point here, which is that SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc would really like to see rockets be an alternative to airplanes, in which case we are talking about a dramatically increased number of launches.
Just as 100k jet airplane flights per day would have been unimaginable in the ~50s when the jet airliner industry started, I actually can imagine a near future where many more than 10k rockets per day are launched, if the industry has it's way and succeeds in reducing costs dramatically.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I am under the impression that Starship does not use that, the least expensive fuels for rockets are highly CO2 emitting, and the least expensive fuels are what will get rolled out in mass numbers if SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others succeed in building a rocket transportation industry.