Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (1527941)	3/8/2025 8:00:39 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Recommended By Eric Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576893

Inode, The testing process at SpaceX is fundamentally no different from what you do in your work or what I do in mine; but it is a matter of particular domain and scale. Exactly. That's why I'm telling you that two rocket explosions in a row is a serious sign of FUBAR. If a flagship chip at Intel or Apple was DOA for two steppings in a row, heads would roll. The object is to test and re-test until the problems have been defeated. Right, but you simply can't have failures like these happen repeatedly. Once in a while is fine, but two in a row is a real concern. Every single failure, when it comes to SpaceX rockets, is incredibly expensive and time-consuming. That's why guys like me are hired. Find the failures before they make it into the actual launch product. Obviously not all the bugs or defects can be found before then, but it's our job to make sure they are minimized and that the ones that do escape our detection can be "survived." At least when it comes to defective silicon, all we see is maybe a Blue Screen Of Death. A defective rocket, especially one that is really huge in scale like the latest SpaceX test vehicle, is a lot worse. Tenchusatsu