Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

This is what engineering is about: Safety, Functionality and Efficiency in that order👌🏿👌🏿👌🏿 The sacred triad of engineering—safety first (because lawsuits and Darwin Awards are nobody's friend), functionality second (it has to work, or what's the point?), and efficiency last (polish it up once it's not going to explode).... show more

Engineer Matšhela Koko, MBL

182,992 subscribers

152,855 views • 7 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Education Health & Wellness Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Rick Rubin on being addicted to the miracle of creation: “I like the moment of revelation. So we're working on something and it's just okay. It's boring. I'd rather not be there. That's how it feels. But then something happens and it's like magic. Something appears. It's not like we made it. Something comes up in the process. It's conjured in the process. It’s like a miracle and that's the thing that's addictive. That feeling when it's like it's not good, it's not good, it's not good, it's not good. We try something and it doesn't work. Try something else and it doesn't work. But then all of the sudden what we're listening to is really cool. That's the [addictive] feeling, that moment of discovery where it goes from nothing to something really good. And then the whole rest of the process after that is protecting that because it's super delicate. When it happens it's like this miracle happened and this magic thing happened and now we have to protect it through the rest of the process to not ruin it. It's scary because you don't want it to end. You don't want it to stop because we know if it stops, we can't control it. We can't do it again. It's not like that. It's this moment in time where something magical happens. So we spend a lot of time waiting and I can't say that's fun. Waiting is not fun.”

Rick Rubin on being addicted to the miracle of creation: “I like the moment of revelation. So we're working on something and it's just okay. It's boring. I'd rather not be there. That's how it feels. But then something happens and it's like magic. Something appears. It's not like we made it. Something comes up in the process. It's conjured in the process. It’s like a miracle and that's the thing that's addictive. That feeling when it's like it's not good, it's not good, it's not good, it's not good. We try something and it doesn't work. Try something else and it doesn't work. But then all of the sudden what we're listening to is really cool. That's the [addictive] feeling, that moment of discovery where it goes from nothing to something really good. And then the whole rest of the process after that is protecting that because it's super delicate. When it happens it's like this miracle happened and this magic thing happened and now we have to protect it through the rest of the process to not ruin it. It's scary because you don't want it to end. You don't want it to stop because we know if it stops, we can't control it. We can't do it again. It's not like that. It's this moment in time where something magical happens. So we spend a lot of time waiting and I can't say that's fun. Waiting is not fun.”

David Senra

12,712 views • 1 month ago

Elon Musk, 13 years ago: A fully and rapidly reusable rocket is barely possible. SpaceX is going to try to do it. We could fail, but we're going to try to do it. “The pivotal breakthrough that's necessary, that some company has to come up with to make life multiplanetary, is a fully and rapidly reusable orbit-class rocket. This is a very difficult thing to do because we live on a planet where that is just barely possible. If gravity were a little lower, it would be easy. If it was a little higher, it would be impossible. It's just a very tough engineering problem. I wasn't sure it could be solved for a while. But then, relatively recently, probably in the last twelve months or so, I've come to the conclusion that it can be solved. And I think, SpaceX is going to try to do it. Now, we could fail. I'm not saying we're certain of success here, but we're going to try to do it. And we have a design that, on paper, doing the calculations, doing the simulations, it does work. And now, we need to make sure that those simulations and reality agree, because generally when they don't, reality wins.” National Press Club, 2011

Elon Musk, 13 years ago: A fully and rapidly reusable rocket is barely possible. SpaceX is going to try to do it. We could fail, but we're going to try to do it. “The pivotal breakthrough that's necessary, that some company has to come up with to make life multiplanetary, is a fully and rapidly reusable orbit-class rocket. This is a very difficult thing to do because we live on a planet where that is just barely possible. If gravity were a little lower, it would be easy. If it was a little higher, it would be impossible. It's just a very tough engineering problem. I wasn't sure it could be solved for a while. But then, relatively recently, probably in the last twelve months or so, I've come to the conclusion that it can be solved. And I think, SpaceX is going to try to do it. Now, we could fail. I'm not saying we're certain of success here, but we're going to try to do it. And we have a design that, on paper, doing the calculations, doing the simulations, it does work. And now, we need to make sure that those simulations and reality agree, because generally when they don't, reality wins.” National Press Club, 2011

ELON CLIPS

43,663,021 views • 1 year ago

Derrick Milano about working with BTS 🙏🧎‍♀️ ‘The biggest part for me working with them is just really like, they really love creating music. It doesn't seem like they're in it for the money. It doesn't seem like they're in it for clout. It seems like they really genuinely and passionately love music. I think we need to see that more because it's a gift from God that we have and we can't take it for granted because at any point in time it can get taken away. So when you do have the opportunity and the luxury and you do have the pleasure to work with amazing people and you're able to put this stuff out, take advantage of it, and I think THEY take advantage of it to the fullest extent, from their music videos to the performance to the recording to the engineering to who they collaborate with. They use it to the fullest extent, and I think that's why it's so receptive and it's performing the way it is, because they go above and beyond for their work and their process and their product.’

Derrick Milano about working with BTS 🙏🧎‍♀️ ‘The biggest part for me working with them is just really like, they really love creating music. It doesn't seem like they're in it for the money. It doesn't seem like they're in it for clout. It seems like they really genuinely and passionately love music. I think we need to see that more because it's a gift from God that we have and we can't take it for granted because at any point in time it can get taken away. So when you do have the opportunity and the luxury and you do have the pleasure to work with amazing people and you're able to put this stuff out, take advantage of it, and I think THEY take advantage of it to the fullest extent, from their music videos to the performance to the recording to the engineering to who they collaborate with. They use it to the fullest extent, and I think that's why it's so receptive and it's performing the way it is, because they go above and beyond for their work and their process and their product.’

Lore ⊙⊝⊜ ᴀʀɪʀᴀɴɢ

27,070 views • 2 months ago

Watters: This is like renting a car and taking it to a car wash before you return it. What's the point? It's not your car. And it's going back anyway.

Watters: This is like renting a car and taking it to a car wash before you return it. What's the point? It's not your car. And it's going back anyway.

Acyn

75,055 views • 1 year ago

Here's Elon Musk in 2011 announcing he believes full and rapidly reusable rockets are achievable. “The pivotal breakthrough that some company has to come up with to make life multiplanetary is a fully and rapidly reusable orbit-class rocket. This is a very difficult thing to do because we live on a planet where that is just barely possible. If gravity were a little lower, it would be easy. If it was a little higher, it would be impossible. It's just a very tough engineering problem. I wasn't sure it could be solved for a while. But then, relatively recently, in the last twelve months or so, I've come to the conclusion that it can be solved. SpaceX is going to try to do it. We could fail. I'm not saying we're certain of success, but we're going to try to do it. We have a design that, on paper, doing the calculations, doing the simulations, does work. We need to make sure that those simulations and reality agree, because generally when they don't, reality wins.” National Press Club, 2011

Here's Elon Musk in 2011 announcing he believes full and rapidly reusable rockets are achievable. “The pivotal breakthrough that some company has to come up with to make life multiplanetary is a fully and rapidly reusable orbit-class rocket. This is a very difficult thing to do because we live on a planet where that is just barely possible. If gravity were a little lower, it would be easy. If it was a little higher, it would be impossible. It's just a very tough engineering problem. I wasn't sure it could be solved for a while. But then, relatively recently, in the last twelve months or so, I've come to the conclusion that it can be solved. SpaceX is going to try to do it. We could fail. I'm not saying we're certain of success, but we're going to try to do it. We have a design that, on paper, doing the calculations, doing the simulations, does work. We need to make sure that those simulations and reality agree, because generally when they don't, reality wins.” National Press Club, 2011

ELON CLIPS

19,955,019 views • 1 year ago

Emily Thornberry, "If a large and powerful country abducts the leader of another and then tries to intimidate the smaller country, in order to gain access to its resources" "Doesn't Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper agree that this should be called out?" "A break of international law" "It is not for the country breaking the law to say whether or not it has broken the law" "It is is for the West to surely stand up and call it for what it is" Yvette Cooper replies like the coward she is

Emily Thornberry, "If a large and powerful country abducts the leader of another and then tries to intimidate the smaller country, in order to gain access to its resources" "Doesn't Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper agree that this should be called out?" "A break of international law" "It is not for the country breaking the law to say whether or not it has broken the law" "It is is for the West to surely stand up and call it for what it is" Yvette Cooper replies like the coward she is

Farrukh

28,376 views • 5 months ago

Maddow: That has never happened at this scale in this way before when it comes to programing changes, presumably because it's not the right way to treat people and it's inefficient and it's unnecessary, and it kind of drops the bottom out of whether or not people feel like this is a good place to work.

Maddow: That has never happened at this scale in this way before when it comes to programing changes, presumably because it's not the right way to treat people and it's inefficient and it's unnecessary, and it kind of drops the bottom out of whether or not people feel like this is a good place to work.

Acyn

49,294 views • 1 year ago

James Harden on if the Clippers loss against the Wolves is deflating: “It's not just this game. It’s the Milwaukee game in Milwaukee. You look at the Laker game, like this [game]. I could point to a handful of games. It's not about another team. It's about us and that's what we preach and that's what it is. No matter who we play. And if we're healthy and our energy is right, it doesn't matter who we play.”

James Harden on if the Clippers loss against the Wolves is deflating: “It's not just this game. It’s the Milwaukee game in Milwaukee. You look at the Laker game, like this [game]. I could point to a handful of games. It's not about another team. It's about us and that's what we preach and that's what it is. No matter who we play. And if we're healthy and our energy is right, it doesn't matter who we play.”

Tomer Azarly

16,663 views • 2 years ago

Miller: Who lives in your country determines what your country is. Haiti doesn't work as a country. If you move it to America, it's not going to work here. Somalia doesn't work as a country. You take Somalia out of Somalia and put it here and it's not gonna work any better. If you move the third world to the first world, eventually we become the third world and that's not good for us and it's not good for anybody who wants to live here in the future.

Miller: Who lives in your country determines what your country is. Haiti doesn't work as a country. If you move it to America, it's not going to work here. Somalia doesn't work as a country. You take Somalia out of Somalia and put it here and it's not gonna work any better. If you move the third world to the first world, eventually we become the third world and that's not good for us and it's not good for anybody who wants to live here in the future.

Acyn

472,783 views • 11 months ago

"We have no control over the temperature of the Earth." Joe Rogan: "We're in a massive cooling period... It's never static. It's down and up, and down and up... all throughout the history of the Earth." "It's not like it's static, and then industrial engineering comes along, and then you see this big increase." "What's really terrifying... is global cooling. That's what's really terrifying." "When global warming happens... you've got to move to the places where it used to be cold, and now it's warm, because humans have always been nomadic. That's the whole reason why we're not in Africa anymore." "Global cooling will kill everything." Credit: Joe Rogan

"We have no control over the temperature of the Earth." Joe Rogan: "We're in a massive cooling period... It's never static. It's down and up, and down and up... all throughout the history of the Earth." "It's not like it's static, and then industrial engineering comes along, and then you see this big increase." "What's really terrifying... is global cooling. That's what's really terrifying." "When global warming happens... you've got to move to the places where it used to be cold, and now it's warm, because humans have always been nomadic. That's the whole reason why we're not in Africa anymore." "Global cooling will kill everything." Credit: Joe Rogan

Wide Awake Media

72,658 views • 1 year ago

Rogin: It looks very likely that we're about to restart bombing of Iran. And there are a lot of reports out there that this is about to happen. And what that means is that all of the problems, not just with the US economy, with the economy of every country in the world, are about to get worse. And it means that the Iran war is going to go much longer than otherwise anticipated. And that is a disaster not just for Americans, but for all people. And then if you think about the effects on energy and then manufacturing, and then rates will continue to go up, and then inflation, it's a it's a calamity for the world economy with no strategy whatsoever.

Rogin: It looks very likely that we're about to restart bombing of Iran. And there are a lot of reports out there that this is about to happen. And what that means is that all of the problems, not just with the US economy, with the economy of every country in the world, are about to get worse. And it means that the Iran war is going to go much longer than otherwise anticipated. And that is a disaster not just for Americans, but for all people. And then if you think about the effects on energy and then manufacturing, and then rates will continue to go up, and then inflation, it's a it's a calamity for the world economy with no strategy whatsoever.

Acyn

73,174 views • 1 month ago

Rick Rubin tells Andrew Huberman how he deals with creative or writer’s block. He treats his work like a diary entry (and doesn’t worry about internal or external judgment): ➡️ “What's the cause of the block? The block is usually something that's either personal ("I'm not good enough") or it can be a confidence issue ("I don't have anything to say") or it could be...thinking about someone else ("nobody's going to like what I make"). Do you know what I'm saying? So, it's either fear of self-judgment or external judgment. If you're making something with a freedom of "this is something I'm making for myself for now", that is all [you have to do]. It is a diary entry. Everything I make is a diary entry. The beauty of a diary entry is that I can write my diary entry and you can't tell me that my diary entry wasn't good enough. Or that [the diary entry] is not what I experienced. Of course it's what I experienced: I'm writing a personal diary for myself and no one else can judge if it is my experience of my life. Everything we make can be that: a personal reflection of who we are in that moment of time. It doesn't have to be the greatest you could ever do. It doesn't have to have any expectation that it's going to change the world. It doesn't have to sell a certain number of copies for any reason. It doesn't have any of those things at all. It is "I'm making this thing for me and I want to do it to the best of my ability and to where I feel good about it". [The work] is honest of where I'm at and if you're living in this world of just being honest to where you're at, there's nothing blocking you. There are no blocks. The blocks are all based on dealing with a different force or a different perception that is made up.” ⬅️

Rick Rubin tells Andrew Huberman how he deals with creative or writer’s block. He treats his work like a diary entry (and doesn’t worry about internal or external judgment): ➡️ “What's the cause of the block? The block is usually something that's either personal ("I'm not good enough") or it can be a confidence issue ("I don't have anything to say") or it could be...thinking about someone else ("nobody's going to like what I make"). Do you know what I'm saying? So, it's either fear of self-judgment or external judgment. If you're making something with a freedom of "this is something I'm making for myself for now", that is all [you have to do]. It is a diary entry. Everything I make is a diary entry. The beauty of a diary entry is that I can write my diary entry and you can't tell me that my diary entry wasn't good enough. Or that [the diary entry] is not what I experienced. Of course it's what I experienced: I'm writing a personal diary for myself and no one else can judge if it is my experience of my life. Everything we make can be that: a personal reflection of who we are in that moment of time. It doesn't have to be the greatest you could ever do. It doesn't have to have any expectation that it's going to change the world. It doesn't have to sell a certain number of copies for any reason. It doesn't have any of those things at all. It is "I'm making this thing for me and I want to do it to the best of my ability and to where I feel good about it". [The work] is honest of where I'm at and if you're living in this world of just being honest to where you're at, there's nothing blocking you. There are no blocks. The blocks are all based on dealing with a different force or a different perception that is made up.” ⬅️

Trung Phan

1,619,350 views • 2 years ago

.David Sacks: “It is really an honor to work at the White House and for this President because he actually wants to get things done on behalf of the American people … It's a once in a lifetime opportunity … If we're not able to cut the deficit and debt now, when are we ever going to do it?”

.David Sacks: “It is really an honor to work at the White House and for this President because he actually wants to get things done on behalf of the American people … It's a once in a lifetime opportunity … If we're not able to cut the deficit and debt now, when are we ever going to do it?”

Chief Nerd

217,758 views • 1 year ago

President Trump: "If the first [meeting] goes okay, we'll have a quick second one. I would like to do it almost immediately. And we'll have a quick second meeting between President Putin and President Zelenskyy, and myself, if they'd like to have me there. And that would be a meeting where maybe it could be absolutely worked out. But the first meeting will not work that out. Certain great things can be gained in the first. It's going to be a very important meeting. But it's setting the table for the second meeting. Now, there may be no second meeting, because if I feel that it's not appropriate to have it because I didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we're not going to have a second meeting."

President Trump: "If the first [meeting] goes okay, we'll have a quick second one. I would like to do it almost immediately. And we'll have a quick second meeting between President Putin and President Zelenskyy, and myself, if they'd like to have me there. And that would be a meeting where maybe it could be absolutely worked out. But the first meeting will not work that out. Certain great things can be gained in the first. It's going to be a very important meeting. But it's setting the table for the second meeting. Now, there may be no second meeting, because if I feel that it's not appropriate to have it because I didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we're not going to have a second meeting."

Anton Gerashchenko

39,097 views • 10 months ago

AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")

AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

1,841,977 views • 2 years ago

James Talarico: "The first two lines of the Bible, the first two lines in Genesis, use two different Hebrew words to describe God. One is the masculine Hebrew noun for divinity. The second is the feminine Hebrew noun of spirit. God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is non-binary.” It's actually true that God is not male or female like we are. He doesn't have a body like we do. Yet, Talarico's statement is inaccurate because God consistently refers to Himself as Father, King, and Lord in masculine terms. In Genesis 1:27, it's very clear that God made us male and female. If Talarico really believed in Genesis 1:1, that in the beginning God created the heavens and earth, then he would know that if He’s the creator and ruler over all of it, then He's the authority over all of it. He alone has the right and responsibility to be the decider and definer of all things. He alone gets to say what's right and what's wrong. What's true and what's false. What a woman is and what she's not. To define the parameters of holy sexuality and to decide what marriage is. James Talarico doesn't submit to God as the creator and the ruler of all things. He sees God is a political pawn.

James Talarico: "The first two lines of the Bible, the first two lines in Genesis, use two different Hebrew words to describe God. One is the masculine Hebrew noun for divinity. The second is the feminine Hebrew noun of spirit. God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is non-binary.” It's actually true that God is not male or female like we are. He doesn't have a body like we do. Yet, Talarico's statement is inaccurate because God consistently refers to Himself as Father, King, and Lord in masculine terms. In Genesis 1:27, it's very clear that God made us male and female. If Talarico really believed in Genesis 1:1, that in the beginning God created the heavens and earth, then he would know that if He’s the creator and ruler over all of it, then He's the authority over all of it. He alone has the right and responsibility to be the decider and definer of all things. He alone gets to say what's right and what's wrong. What's true and what's false. What a woman is and what she's not. To define the parameters of holy sexuality and to decide what marriage is. James Talarico doesn't submit to God as the creator and the ruler of all things. He sees God is a political pawn.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey

37,155 views • 3 months ago

Here's Elon Musk back in 2010 announcing that SpaceX is going to try to build a fully and rapidly reusable orbit-class rocket. “The pivotal breakthrough that's necessary, that some company has to come up with to make life multiplanetary is a fully and rapidly reusable orbit-class rocket. This is a very difficult thing to do because we live on a planet where that is just barely possible. If gravity were a little lower, it would be easy. If it was a little higher, it would be impossible. Even for an expendable launch vehicle where you don't attempt any recovery, you get maybe 2% to 3% of your liftoff weight to orbit. Now you say, okay, let's make it reusable. Which means you've got to strengthen the stages, you've got to add a lot of weight, a lot of thermal protection, you've got to do a lot of things that add weight to that vehicle and still have a useful payload to orbit. Now, you're saying, of that meager 2% to 3% and maybe if you're really good, get it to 4%, you've got to add all that's necessary to bring the rocket stages back to the launchpad and be able to refly them and still have useful payloads to orbit. So, a very difficult thing. This has been attempted many times in the past and generally what's happened is when people have concluded that success was not one of the possible outcomes then the project's been abandoned. It's just a very tough engineering problem. It wasn't something that I thought I wasn't sure it could be solved, for a while, but then relatively recently, probably in the last 12 months or so, I've come to the conclusion that it can be solved. And I think SpaceX is going to try to do it. We could fail. I'm not saying we're certain of success here, but we're going to try to do it. We have a design that on paper, doing the calculations, doing the simulations, it does work. And now we need to make sure that those simulations and reality agree because generally when they don't, reality wins.” National Press Club, September 29, 2010

Here's Elon Musk back in 2010 announcing that SpaceX is going to try to build a fully and rapidly reusable orbit-class rocket. “The pivotal breakthrough that's necessary, that some company has to come up with to make life multiplanetary is a fully and rapidly reusable orbit-class rocket. This is a very difficult thing to do because we live on a planet where that is just barely possible. If gravity were a little lower, it would be easy. If it was a little higher, it would be impossible. Even for an expendable launch vehicle where you don't attempt any recovery, you get maybe 2% to 3% of your liftoff weight to orbit. Now you say, okay, let's make it reusable. Which means you've got to strengthen the stages, you've got to add a lot of weight, a lot of thermal protection, you've got to do a lot of things that add weight to that vehicle and still have a useful payload to orbit. Now, you're saying, of that meager 2% to 3% and maybe if you're really good, get it to 4%, you've got to add all that's necessary to bring the rocket stages back to the launchpad and be able to refly them and still have useful payloads to orbit. So, a very difficult thing. This has been attempted many times in the past and generally what's happened is when people have concluded that success was not one of the possible outcomes then the project's been abandoned. It's just a very tough engineering problem. It wasn't something that I thought I wasn't sure it could be solved, for a while, but then relatively recently, probably in the last 12 months or so, I've come to the conclusion that it can be solved. And I think SpaceX is going to try to do it. We could fail. I'm not saying we're certain of success here, but we're going to try to do it. We have a design that on paper, doing the calculations, doing the simulations, it does work. And now we need to make sure that those simulations and reality agree because generally when they don't, reality wins.” National Press Club, September 29, 2010

ELON CLIPS

14,920 views • 10 months ago

Elon Musk Elon Musk on the importance of physics: “I am a big believer in physics. Everything else is a recommendation, pretty much, but physics is the law. Like if you break physics... the rocket will explode and the car will not work. So you have to adhere to physics in order to make cars that work, to make rockets that work, to make space internet work. Because if you're wrong, then reality is a very harsh judge. Reality is merciless. Because if you make a device that doesn't work, violates physics, it simply doesn't work, and then you rocket blows up and the satellites don't work and the cars break. In order to make the technology work, you must have an extremely rigorous pursuit of the truth. Because, otherwise reality will bite you in the a**.”

Elon Musk Elon Musk on the importance of physics: “I am a big believer in physics. Everything else is a recommendation, pretty much, but physics is the law. Like if you break physics... the rocket will explode and the car will not work. So you have to adhere to physics in order to make cars that work, to make rockets that work, to make space internet work. Because if you're wrong, then reality is a very harsh judge. Reality is merciless. Because if you make a device that doesn't work, violates physics, it simply doesn't work, and then you rocket blows up and the satellites don't work and the cars break. In order to make the technology work, you must have an extremely rigorous pursuit of the truth. Because, otherwise reality will bite you in the a**.”

Colene Copeland-Kruszynski👾

53,721 views • 7 months ago

Just because God looks at the heart and not the outward appearance doesn't mean women should show up to church completely n@ked or half dressed. Like, what is this n0nsense? 🤦🏾‍♂️ Seriously, it's time for the Lord to return and put an end to all this m@dness. Have we really fallen this far? Is this what church has turned into? Is this how we're supposed to honor and praise God? The world is truly finished. 😭😭 And even if it's just a skit or staged for views, what message is it actually sending? It's clearly ridiculing the church and making a mockery of sacred things.

Just because God looks at the heart and not the outward appearance doesn't mean women should show up to church completely n@ked or half dressed. Like, what is this n0nsense? 🤦🏾‍♂️ Seriously, it's time for the Lord to return and put an end to all this m@dness. Have we really fallen this far? Is this what church has turned into? Is this how we're supposed to honor and praise God? The world is truly finished. 😭😭 And even if it's just a skit or staged for views, what message is it actually sending? It's clearly ridiculing the church and making a mockery of sacred things.

CHIGO

34,868 views • 4 months ago