WALL-E

To be fair, they changed it in the last couple of years. It used to be that you held the power button to power it off. Now you have to hold the power button AND a volume button for some reason.

With open source firmware. Preferably QMK + VIA.

Also, removable batteries and waterproofing are not mutually exclusive. There have been flagships that were waterproof and had a removable battery, like the Galaxy S5. And there still are phones like that. Manufacturers have taken this away from us.

Also, also, every other industry has seemed to have figured it out. Go to the dollar store and you will find a flashlight that is waterproof and has easily replaceable AA batteries. Its not that complicated. Apple is one of the most successful companies on the planet, they can hire an engineer to come up with a decent solution. Apple et al. using waterproofing as an excuse to make the entire phone disposable when, not if, the battery dies is bullshit.

“Not as shit as you could be” is not something we should be praising. A handful of years is still too short, just because it is marginally better than their competitors doesn’t mean we should give Apple a pass. It just means that the industry is full of shitty companies that profit off of producing e-waste, and know that consumers have no real choice but to put up with it.

“The Year Of Linux on Desktops”. Been hearing this for decades, but it might actually be happening.

Been hearing this for decades.

What you’re talking about is usually referred to as a de-orbit burn. Sure somebody could call it a reentry burn, but not SpaceX. What SpaceX calls a reentry burn is the maneuver when a Falcon 9 booster lights its engines as it first hits the atmosphere to slow down and move the heating away from it’s body. Neither the super heavy booster nor the ship make a maneuver like this.

IFT3 did not make a de-orbit burn, and there is not one planned for IFT4 either.

IFT3 was technically suborbital, but only barely. Like a couple hundred km/h short. Literally a couple of seconds longer second stage burn would have put it into a stable orbit. Or the same velocity just with a lower apogee. They intentionally left the perigee just inside the atmosphere so a deorbit burn was not required. This is also the plan for IFT4, iirc. I think they are talking about the bellyflop/suicide burn. It was not planned on IFT3, but is for IFT4.

Both the booster and the ship have attitude control thrusters that you could see firing during the live stream of IFT3. Early prototypes used nitrogen cold-gas thrusters, but were planned to be upgraded to methane/oxygen hot-gas thrusters at some point. I don’t recall if/when they were.

the explosion, which took place at its Boca Chica Starbase facilities

The raptor testing stand at McGregor experienced an anomaly

Well, which is it? I’m going to trust NASASpaceflight over this article and go with it was a McGregor. No where near Starbase. And that means it will likely have no effect on IFT4 as this article says.

edit: Adding to this, the author of this article has no idea what they are talking about.

The Raptor engines that are currently undergoing testing are SpaceX’s Raptor 2 engines

So clearly nothing to do with IFT4, as Ship 29 and Booster 11 are already outfitted with their engines, non of which are Raptor 2s.

On its last flight test, IFT-3, Starship finally reached orbital velocity and it soared around Earth before crashing down into the Indian Ocean. On the next flight, SpaceX aims to perform a reentry burn, allowing Starship to perform a soft landing in the ocean.

IFT3 burned up on reentry, maybe parts of it made it to the ocean, but it was not crashing into the ocean that was the problem. IFT4 does not plan on doing a reentry burn. No one does a reentry burn from orbit. Starship uses a heat shield like every other orbital space craft. They are planning to attempt a landing burn, that is probably what they are talking about.

apt search KEYWORD

Or

dnf search KEYWORD

Or

pacman -Ss KEYWORD