voluntary

Author: MarkBruns

book/Manifesto.html

@@ -212,6 +212,7 @@ <h3 id="the-philosophical-schism-in-aerospace-development"><a class="header" hre
 <p>This history is crucial because it reveals that the adoption of iterative design directly correlates with the increasing complexity and, most importantly, the <em>unpredictability</em> of the systems being built. It is a methodology born from the frank admission that for truly novel systems—those operating at the bleeding edge of science—perfect upfront simulation is a fantasy.</p>
 <p>The Waterfall model presumes a knowable, stable problem space that can be fully defined in advance. The iterative model makes the opposite assumption: that the problem space is fundamentally unknowable and can only be revealed through direct, repeated interaction with physical reality.</p>
 <p>It is explicitly designed to accommodate change and to surface what engineers call "unknown unknowns"—the insidious problems that no amount of planning can predict—as quickly and cheaply as possible<a href="#works-cited"><sup>13</sup></a>. Companies like SpaceX have become the modern evangelists of this approach, contrasting their agile methodology with the more staid, risk-averse culture of traditional aerospace<a href="#works-cited"><sup>3</sup></a>.</p>
+<p>It should be noted that at HROS.dev, we do inexpensive theoretical prepartory work ... but we are huge fans of the SpaceX approach -- HOWEVER, we must emphasize why nobody ever should ever forget that what SpaceX does requires monstrous outlays of very smart, very much AT RISK <em>skin in the game</em> independent capital, ie it's for the EXTREMELY WELL-HEALED, EXTREMELY WEALTHY, or for those who have <em>mad money</em> to invest in or <em>throw away on</em> this approach ... we are huge fans BECAUSE the INDEPENDENT commitment of capital is entirely VOLUNTARY.  <em><strong>THE COERCIVELY VIOLENT TAX AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT USED TO FINANCE A RIDICULOUSLY SPECULATIVE APPROACH</strong></em> --  those involved voluntarily commit their own capital however they came about it, but NOT FROM STEALING IT FROM OTHERS THROUGH THE TAX CODE as politicians do, ie it is not the least bit fair to compare SpaceX to NASA ... <em><strong>SpaceX is far superior, in a variety of different dimensions BECAUSE the capital committed is VOLUNTARILY committed.</strong></em></p>
 <p>This philosophical schism is not about which method is abstractly "better," but about which is better suited to the epistemic condition of the task at hand. Waterfall is for building bridges; iteration is for building starships.</p>
 <p><strong>Table 1: Comparison of Aerospace Development Methodologies</strong></p>
 <div class="table-wrapper"><table><thead><tr><th style="text-align: left">Feature</th><th style="text-align: left">Traditional "Waterfall" Model</th><th style="text-align: left">Iterative "Agile" Model</th></tr></thead><tbody>

book/index.html

@@ -212,6 +212,7 @@ <h3 id="the-philosophical-schism-in-aerospace-development"><a class="header" hre
 <p>This history is crucial because it reveals that the adoption of iterative design directly correlates with the increasing complexity and, most importantly, the <em>unpredictability</em> of the systems being built. It is a methodology born from the frank admission that for truly novel systems—those operating at the bleeding edge of science—perfect upfront simulation is a fantasy.</p>
 <p>The Waterfall model presumes a knowable, stable problem space that can be fully defined in advance. The iterative model makes the opposite assumption: that the problem space is fundamentally unknowable and can only be revealed through direct, repeated interaction with physical reality.</p>
 <p>It is explicitly designed to accommodate change and to surface what engineers call "unknown unknowns"—the insidious problems that no amount of planning can predict—as quickly and cheaply as possible<a href="#works-cited"><sup>13</sup></a>. Companies like SpaceX have become the modern evangelists of this approach, contrasting their agile methodology with the more staid, risk-averse culture of traditional aerospace<a href="#works-cited"><sup>3</sup></a>.</p>
+<p>It should be noted that at HROS.dev, we do inexpensive theoretical prepartory work ... but we are huge fans of the SpaceX approach -- HOWEVER, we must emphasize why nobody ever should ever forget that what SpaceX does requires monstrous outlays of very smart, very much AT RISK <em>skin in the game</em> independent capital, ie it's for the EXTREMELY WELL-HEALED, EXTREMELY WEALTHY, or for those who have <em>mad money</em> to invest in or <em>throw away on</em> this approach ... we are huge fans BECAUSE the INDEPENDENT commitment of capital is entirely VOLUNTARY.  <em><strong>THE COERCIVELY VIOLENT TAX AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT USED TO FINANCE A RIDICULOUSLY SPECULATIVE APPROACH</strong></em> --  those involved voluntarily commit their own capital however they came about it, but NOT FROM STEALING IT FROM OTHERS THROUGH THE TAX CODE as politicians do, ie it is not the least bit fair to compare SpaceX to NASA ... <em><strong>SpaceX is far superior, in a variety of different dimensions BECAUSE the capital committed is VOLUNTARILY committed.</strong></em></p>
 <p>This philosophical schism is not about which method is abstractly "better," but about which is better suited to the epistemic condition of the task at hand. Waterfall is for building bridges; iteration is for building starships.</p>
 <p><strong>Table 1: Comparison of Aerospace Development Methodologies</strong></p>
 <div class="table-wrapper"><table><thead><tr><th style="text-align: left">Feature</th><th style="text-align: left">Traditional "Waterfall" Model</th><th style="text-align: left">Iterative "Agile" Model</th></tr></thead><tbody>

book/print.html

@@ -213,6 +213,7 @@ <h3 id="the-philosophical-schism-in-aerospace-development"><a class="header" hre
 <p>This history is crucial because it reveals that the adoption of iterative design directly correlates with the increasing complexity and, most importantly, the <em>unpredictability</em> of the systems being built. It is a methodology born from the frank admission that for truly novel systems—those operating at the bleeding edge of science—perfect upfront simulation is a fantasy.</p>
 <p>The Waterfall model presumes a knowable, stable problem space that can be fully defined in advance. The iterative model makes the opposite assumption: that the problem space is fundamentally unknowable and can only be revealed through direct, repeated interaction with physical reality.</p>
 <p>It is explicitly designed to accommodate change and to surface what engineers call "unknown unknowns"—the insidious problems that no amount of planning can predict—as quickly and cheaply as possible<a href="Manifesto.html#works-cited"><sup>13</sup></a>. Companies like SpaceX have become the modern evangelists of this approach, contrasting their agile methodology with the more staid, risk-averse culture of traditional aerospace<a href="Manifesto.html#works-cited"><sup>3</sup></a>.</p>
+<p>It should be noted that at HROS.dev, we do inexpensive theoretical prepartory work ... but we are huge fans of the SpaceX approach -- HOWEVER, we must emphasize why nobody ever should ever forget that what SpaceX does requires monstrous outlays of very smart, very much AT RISK <em>skin in the game</em> independent capital, ie it's for the EXTREMELY WELL-HEALED, EXTREMELY WEALTHY, or for those who have <em>mad money</em> to invest in or <em>throw away on</em> this approach ... we are huge fans BECAUSE the INDEPENDENT commitment of capital is entirely VOLUNTARY.  <em><strong>THE COERCIVELY VIOLENT TAX AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT USED TO FINANCE A RIDICULOUSLY SPECULATIVE APPROACH</strong></em> --  those involved voluntarily commit their own capital however they came about it, but NOT FROM STEALING IT FROM OTHERS THROUGH THE TAX CODE as politicians do, ie it is not the least bit fair to compare SpaceX to NASA ... <em><strong>SpaceX is far superior, in a variety of different dimensions BECAUSE the capital committed is VOLUNTARILY committed.</strong></em></p>
 <p>This philosophical schism is not about which method is abstractly "better," but about which is better suited to the epistemic condition of the task at hand. Waterfall is for building bridges; iteration is for building starships.</p>
 <p><strong>Table 1: Comparison of Aerospace Development Methodologies</strong></p>
 <div class="table-wrapper"><table><thead><tr><th style="text-align: left">Feature</th><th style="text-align: left">Traditional "Waterfall" Model</th><th style="text-align: left">Iterative "Agile" Model</th></tr></thead><tbody>

book/searchindex.js

@@ -91,7 +91,9 @@ This history is crucial because it reveals that the adoption of iterative design
 
 The Waterfall model presumes a knowable, stable problem space that can be fully defined in advance. The iterative model makes the opposite assumption: that the problem space is fundamentally unknowable and can only be revealed through direct, repeated interaction with physical reality.
 
-It is explicitly designed to accommodate change and to surface what engineers call "unknown unknowns"—the insidious problems that no amount of planning can predict—as quickly and cheaply as possible[<sup>13</sup>](#works-cited). Companies like SpaceX have become the modern evangelists of this approach, contrasting their agile methodology with the more staid, risk-averse culture of traditional aerospace[<sup>3</sup>](#works-cited).
+It is explicitly designed to accommodate change and to surface what engineers call "unknown unknowns"—the insidious problems that no amount of planning can predict—as quickly and cheaply as possible[<sup>13</sup>](#works-cited). Companies like SpaceX have become the modern evangelists of this approach, contrasting their agile methodology with the more staid, risk-averse culture of traditional aerospace[<sup>3</sup>](#works-cited). 
+
+It should be noted that at HROS.dev, we do inexpensive theoretical prepartory work ... but we are huge fans of the SpaceX approach -- HOWEVER, we must emphasize why nobody ever should ever forget that what SpaceX does requires monstrous outlays of very smart, very much AT RISK *skin in the game* independent capital, ie it's for the EXTREMELY WELL-HEALED, EXTREMELY WEALTHY, or for those who have *mad money* to invest in or *throw away on* this approach ... we are huge fans BECAUSE the INDEPENDENT commitment of capital is entirely VOLUNTARY.  ***THE COERCIVELY VIOLENT TAX AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT USED TO FINANCE A RIDICULOUSLY SPECULATIVE APPROACH*** --  those involved voluntarily commit their own capital however they came about it, but NOT FROM STEALING IT FROM OTHERS THROUGH THE TAX CODE as politicians do, ie it is not the least bit fair to compare SpaceX to NASA ... ***SpaceX is far superior, in a variety of different dimensions BECAUSE the capital committed is VOLUNTARILY committed.***
 
 This philosophical schism is not about which method is abstractly "better," but about which is better suited to the epistemic condition of the task at hand. Waterfall is for building bridges; iteration is for building starships.