47
Elon Musk’s Shadow Rule (www.newyorker.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 36 points 3 years ago (3 children)

If SpaceX is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Nationalizing SpaceX would turn it into nowadays NASA’s system which is risk zero and the expense of pushing the envelope and fast changes. SpaceX doesn’t mind blowing up 10 rockets while nasa will spend years to design one and launch it once.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    SpaceX doesn’t mind blowing up 10 rockets

    SpaceX doesn’t mind blowing up living people, too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    SpaceX doesn’t mind blowing up living people, too

    Assuming /u/NeoNachtwaechter is conflating companies, lumping Starlink in with SpaceX. So that would make him a pro-Russian sympathizer. If not, describe and discuss your evidence.

    Just alluding to “people” means shit. Aligning with Putin is shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    What makes you say that?

    I mean, Elon, sure, but did the company overall do something I missed...?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    What makes you say that?

    Conversations with employees of that company

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    So no actual proof, eh?

    Look - IMHO, Elon and his cars are expensive garbage, but for real accusations on his character and business ethics/acumen to stick, you need to show proof - not hearsay.

    That’s the shit he sells.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    There's nothing but proof that's publicly available. Now, I don't have the sourced wall of text post readily at hand (that you would immediately ignore and attempt to wiggle your way out of as you seem a bit of a sycophant), but you're being disingenuous if you can't admit that he objectively lacks character/ethics in his business and personal life.

    If you do somehow genuinely need an education on how much of a grifter fraud elon is, you start with watching all the videos about him on the YouTube channel called (I believe), thunderfoot. Just search elon and thunderfoot in YouTube.

    But I don't think you'll be doing any of that... I imagine you'll be spending your evening sitting in your bathtub in your tesla bot spandex onesie making hyperloop noises and constantly refreshing the order status page for your 6 year old tesla semi pre-order?

    Regardless of you offering qualifiers that his products are crap, nobody defending elon in 2023 is a serious person.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    So you didn't actually answer anything

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    I guess the Hyperloop noise is just silence then? As it doesn't actually exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago*

    SpaceX doesn’t mind blowing up living people, too

    Try to focus. We're still on the accusation SpaceX kills people.

    Stop moving the target; you just come off as a ranting looney. If we're to turn the tide on Musk's propensity to lie and cheat, we have to look at least honest in what we're offering as proof, and not some half-baked constant argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago

    Their way of working. It is like a software shop, for example the "fail fast" principle.

    This seems disruptive in the world of engineering, and it has caused many people wonder. But it is not the best way if you suddenly have living people sitting in the rockets.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

    I mean, we didn't nationalize Lockheed-Martin or Boeing or Northrop-Grumman or Raytheon or General Dynamics, etc. I think we can survive without nationalizing the company as we've done throughout our defense history.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Those companies had boards of directors and people at the top who were known to be reliable partners. SpaceX has an idiotic juvenile at the helm. The situations are barely even comparable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago

    Those companies had boards of directors and people at the top who were known to be reliable partners. SpaceX has an idiotic juvenile at the helm. The situations are barely even comparable.

    Not a student of history I take it? I give you Howard Hughes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    SpaceX and Tesla now have effective senior management that insulate their divisions from Musk. His impact there is increasingly minimal, if at all present.

    Where Musk is allowed to be Musk is Twitter, an emblem of his wonderful management style.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago*

    None of those companies had the ability to stop their equipment in the field from working if they decided one day they'd rather support our enemies. And they didn't have a history of being influenced by our enemies.

    The article makes it clear that Musk has already gotten Ukrainian soldiers killed with his shenanigans. We should not allow him the chance to do it again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

    If SpaceX is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.

    Remove the SpaceX name from that statement and the statement is just as crazy.

    Examples:

    • If Verizon is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.
    • If Raytheon is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.
    • If Northrup Grumman is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.
    • If General Dynamics Electric Boat is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.
    • If Honeywell International is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.
    • If Boeing is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.
    • If Norfolk Southern Railway is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.

    It just isn't our country's way to steal a company from its owners or shareholders. Its a bit frightening you think it should be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Most or all of your examples have meaningfully valid competitors in the space. SpaceX does not, at least not yet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    So your rationale for seizing a private company is that it is better than its competitors?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    No, it’s that as an effective monopoly, it has unreasonable power over the government.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You're 17 years too late to use that argument in good faith. Not only is SpaceX not a monopoly (because there are many other companies you can buy launch services from in the USA) but because that wasn't the case in 2006 when Boeing and Lockheed (with USA government consent!) created a TRUE launch monopoly by merging to create ULA (United Launch Alliance).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I’m not strictly arguing for federalization, but you’re arguing through whataboutism. And SpaceX is an effective monopoly. Otherwise we’d use other launch services at least some significant amount.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    I’m not strictly arguing for federalization,

    You're replying to the thread where the OP wanted to nationalized SpaceX. I haven't heard you say different. What are you proposing instead?

    but you’re arguing through whataboutism.

    No, I'm citing precedent. Its extremely applicable because its the exact same industry, and even existed before SpaceX. .

    And SpaceX is an effective monopoly. Otherwise we’d use other launch services at least some significant amount.

    I don't think you follow spaceflight very much if you hold this statement. I'm assuming the "we" you're using here means US government launch.

    Here's US government launches that ULA did in 2022 and 2023 so far: 7 launches

    Delta IV Heavy | NROL-68 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA June 22, 2023, 9:18 a.m.

    Delta IV Heavy | NROL-91 United Launch Alliance | USA Vandenberg SFB, CA, USA Sept. 24, 2022, 10:25 p.m.

    Atlas V 421 | SBIRS GEO-6 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA Aug. 4, 2022, 10:29 a.m.

    Atlas V 541 | USSF-12 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA July 1, 2022, 11:15 p.m.

    Atlas V N22 | CST-100 Starliner Orbital Flight Test 2 (OFT-2) United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA May 19, 2022, 6:54 p.m.

    Atlas V 541 | GOES-T United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA March 1, 2022, 9:38 p.m.

    Atlas V 511 | USSF-8 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA Jan. 21, 2022, 7 p.m.

    source

    How is SpaceX am "effective" monopoly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    I was arguing a point, not a position.

    And SpaceX is literally the only means by which the US is able to send astronauts to the ISS currently. StarLink is a strategically critical service for military and probably other purposes.

    Precedent does not intrinsically imply merit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    And SpaceX is literally the only means by which the US is able to send astronauts to the ISS currently.

    Incorrect. The US can and does send astronauts on Soyuz. One of the astronauts currently on the ISS arrived on Soyuz. Additionally, the US chose this path irrespective of companies and vendors when they chose to stop flying the Space Shuttle. You can't blame SpaceX for being successful and Boeing for being unsuccessful as justification to seize a private company.

    StarLink is a strategically critical service for military and probably other purposes.

    That is true state for hundreds of services providing by private companies to the US government. Why aren't you arguing to seize or nationalize those?

    I was arguing a point, not a position.

    So this whole thing is an exercise in pedantry?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Look, you seem like a pretty intelligent person from your post history. Arguing a point instead of a position isn’t pedantry, it’s precision. You seem really worked up about this and I understand why, because forced federalization is a very dangerous and slippery slope. So it’s probably just best for us both to walk away. I don’t want to continue refuting you and I hope you have better things to do than to continue refuting me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You seem really worked up about this and I understand why, because forced federalization is a very dangerous and slippery slope.

    You and I are in complete agreement. Nationalizing a company would have dramatic and catestrophic effects on the free market society in the United States. I do NOT advocate for that. The closest I would come would be good usage of the Defense Production Act.

    I don’t want to continue refuting you and I hope you have better things to do than to continue refuting me.

    I appreciate the time you've taken in having the discussion. I hope you have a great day!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 3 points 3 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    So… In your opinion, it should be allowed to operate like any normal company without restrictions?

    I can't tell what you're trying to say with your first sentence. Most companies DO have specific restrictions based upon their industry, environmental impact, and various forms of regulatory compliance. SpaceX isn't an exception.

    What would happen if, say, a powerful Chinese investor attempted to buy it outright?

    It likely wouldn't be allowed just like other national strategic companies. What is your point with that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 years ago

    There's a caveat. Most countries will heavily regulate access to limited resources, for example radio frequency bands. SpaceX is occupying defined orbit which means it's perfectly reasonable to ensure society benefits from this privilege.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 19 points 3 years ago

    Musk told Kahl that the vivid illustration of how technology he had designed for peaceful ends was being used to wage war gave him pause.

    Well you see, there's you're problem right there... You're completely full of shit. Musk has never designed anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    My brain thought I was on !196@lemmy.blahaj.zone for a second

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •