3 ms·

I figured you had a different idea of reliability because I figure you couldn't seriously be saying that something that has been used is less reliable than some

I figured you had a different idea of reliability because I figure you couldn't seriously be saying that something that has been used is less reliable than something that has literally never done the thing it's supposed to do. Cars, phones etc all have to do the thing they're designed to do before they're sold to consumers. In that way they're all "flight proven" like SpaceX's boosters. By the point of a used sale, the price drops because you don't know how a random consumer will have treated the item. There's a lot of irony in you accusing SpaceX fans of living in an alternate reality and repeating team propaganda without skepticism.

wolverine876 3y ago
> Cars, phones etc all have to do the thing they're designed to do before they're sold to consumers. Do you mean that someone individually uses each product sold? I don't think so. Things wear down in use. It's just reality. Not only does the market value drop, but accounting systems recognize it through depreciation. You've tried to redefine 'used' as superior reliability, but that's only in the rhetorical world where 'war is peace', 'freedom is slavery', etc. There is uncertainty to brand new, untested technology, but that's not what we're talking about. There is uncertainty to a more limited extent in unused individual products, but I've already addressed that. I don't know what team you think I'm on?