“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.

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.

Now you need a bigger feeder to keep your automatic feeder feeder topped up.

There are, and always has been, waterproof devices with replaceable batteries. Phone manufacturers love that they can lie and say that a removable battery affects waterproofing. By making the battery hard to remove, and some other tricks, they make the phone less repairable. They then can convince consumers that they need to replace their phone every 18-24 months.

The only reason to replace your phone every two years is that you want the new shiny. All other reasons are artificial, marketing garbage created by manufactures who profit off of creating e-waste.