From Ears Back to Eyes

I am once again extremely busy with work, which has greatly hindered my blogging over the last few weeks.  But one thing that occurred to me these last few days is the manner in which ease of access, convenience, and low cost are used by would-be monopolists as bait in order to ensnare ever-increasing numbers of people into dependence as consumers on monopoly businesses.  We see also how ever-increasing consolidation of businesses leads to ever-shrinking numbers of players in any particular market segment.  (Hopefully I'll have more to say on this subject in a future post.)

Take audiobooks as an example.  To rely solely on audiobooks as a means of consuming either fiction or nonfiction is increasingly an unsatisfying and potentially harmful strategy for people who want to educate themselves.  (That word "consuming" is unfortunate, but right now I'm tired, it's past my bedtime, and I can't think of a better word...)  I'm not too much of a fan of Google's generative AI (or anyone else's generative AI, for that matter), but when just now I typed "shortcomings 'audiobook industry' 'lack of variety'" into Google Search, I got a highly satisfying summary of some suspicions which have been growing in my mind recently.  The Google AI overview of my search results says "The audiobook industry faces a lack of variety due to publishers focusing mainly on bestsellers and popular genres, leaving niche subjects, indie authors, and translated works underrepresented.  Production costs also limit smaller books from getting audio versions..."  I would also say that an increasing number of nonfiction audiobooks in the business genre are turning out to be subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) cheerleading pieces designed to prop up a harmful status quo.  There seems to be a dearth of voices questioning that status quo.

So, because there are writers who are not well-known, yet whose writing interests me, and these writers are not part of the audiobook market, I'm switching back to running my eyes over a set of printed pages instead of just letting the sounds of spoken words hit my eardrums.  I also understand that making the switch will do my brain some good.  Now if only I can find the time...

Humpty Dumpty Part 2: Musk's Further Fallacies

I hinted (not so subtly) in my last post that Elon Musk likes to brag about solving the impossible problem of achieving cheap space flight because he wants to boast of being a totally awesome dude who is smarter than all the rest of us.  I also mentioned that Elon Musk's company SpaceX developed fully reusable orbital launch vehicles in the 2010's.  

However, on further examination I found that this is not true.  SpaceX has not, I repeat, has not developed the world's first fully reusable orbital launch rocket.  In fact, no one has.  It turns out that Musk has merely promised that SpaceX is on the verge of developing the world's first fully reusable rocket.  In an article by Stephen Kuper published in SpaceConnect Magazine in November 2025 titled "‘Next year’ Musk predicts ‘full reusability’ rocket imminent", Musk himself admits that his company has not achieved full reusability yet.  At best, his rockets are only partially reusable.  Also, there is an interesting piece also published in 2025 in Intereconomics Review of European Economic Policy titled, "The Missing Rocket: An Economic and Engineering Analysis of the Reusability Dilemma in the European Space Sector".  This article provides a further examination of the economic viability of reusable orbital launch systems like the SpaceX rockets, and discovers that these rockets have certain unaddressed economic liabilities.  

Lastly, it must be mentioned once again that SpaceX is a money-losing business despite its frequent rocket launches.  It may be that at least part of SpaceX's losses are due to a company policy of predatory pricing in an attempt to drive competitors out of business.