[palata]

> Their iteration rate is amazing.

Sure, some companies do. Though what I see from the SpaceX launches I don't respect much. They just don't care at all about the impact on biodiversity around the launch site. I would be happier with slower but more sustainable.

> You haven't explained why? Move fast and break things mean to iterate fast, that includes finding way to cut the cost, improve specs, and just make the overall product better.

Difficult to say why. They have really good people and they have built a pretty solid technology, I guess. Their software really sucked in the beginning (10 years ago), but then it got much better.

"Move fast and break things" is also often an excuse to do bad engineering, IMO. "We hacked it because we need to go fast", and then the whole product is a piece of crap and people wonder why.

> Is it or is it not competitive what what DJI is selling on the market?

Nobody can remotely compete with DJI. I just meant "if you are ready to pay for something that is not DJI for ideological reasons".

> The fact they can offer all of that at a lower price point is (in my opinion) a sign of things to come in other industries: electric cars, space travel, renewable energy.

Electric cars and renewable energy are part of a much, much more complicated problem. We just don't have any viable way to replace fossil fuels entirely, so we will have to use less energy (and hence degrow, hopefully in a controlled and smart way).

Space travel is a joke. We need fundamentally new physics if the hope is to go live in another solar system, and I don't understand why people are excited about the idea of surviving in a spaceship. Instead of paying really smart people to work on that useless idea, we should pay them to find clever solutions to degrow. Use less, better, smarter, more sustainable technology everywhere in society.

[dotancohen]

  > They just don't care at all about the impact on biodiversity around the launch site.

Why would you single out SpaceX for this? Not only is that argument applicable to every single other launch provider on the planet, it is also applicable to almost every single factory and even city on the planet. How is the biodiversity in Los Angeles? How big are the areas affected by SpaceX launch facilities compared to the area affected by Los Angeles?

Furthermore, SpaceX's newest rocket burns methane. That means that it is creating a market for a potent greenhouse gas, that is often otherwise just vented to atmosphere as a byproduct of oil extraction. Burning methane creates carbon dioxide, which has 1/20 the climate impact of methane. That rocket, therefore, actually is a net benefit to reduce greenhouse warming.

[palata]

> Why would you single out SpaceX for this?

Because I was answering a comment that mentioned specifically Tesla, SpaceX and Netflix?

> That rocket, therefore, actually is a net benefit to reduce greenhouse warming.

Whaaaaat? With that kind of logic, you could breath underwater. I don't even know how to start answering that. As long as you conclude from "manufacturing and launching a rocket" that it is "net benefit for the environment", you should go back to reading about the problem.