The argument that Starship is somehow an experimental/unproven technology that might fail to materialise was absurd but plausible sounding before flight 1, there were many new technologies simultaneously being deployed to a single launch system in one go.

But after 3 tower catches of the booster demonstrating centimetres of guided precision of the entire stack, this is becoming a tired argument.

I know the author is not making that case at all here, but it seems like one the core reasons to undervalue SpaceX is that Starship might not work out, and this all sounds exactly like how reusability might not work out for the Falcon 9 from 10 years ago.

I don’t know why I get annoyed when LLM’s and their output are casually referred to as “he/she”, particularly by non-techies, but I do. There’s something about personifying an LLM that seems incorrect. Perhaps it’s a fear being stoked that increasingly, people might actually be thinking of LLM’s as living beings.

Now I have taken note to auto-distrust any “article” that lacks an author name, who is willing to personally own any accusations of the article being AI slop.

> The log is the truth; the order book is just a real-time projection of this sequence.

> The book is fast; the log is truth.

> Matching engines can crash; the log cannot.

The problems that one might encounter in dealing with a 1m row table are quite different to a 1b row table, and a 1b row table is a rounding error compared to the problems that a 1t row table presents. A standard library needs to support these massive variations at least somewhat gracefully and that's not a trivial API surface to design.