Skip to content

We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

Technology
489 195 26
  • Idk why everyone keeps talking like nationalizing Elon musk companies means changing them? It’s just removing Elon musk from them, and then reordering them to the public.

    Also hello cyber truck called and that was Elon musk at the helm. He’s good for making good teams and bad decisions

    I mean companies can force him out by themselves if they're pressured enough. Also all companies make unsuccessful business bets. What matters is that from a neutral third person point of view, these companies aren't doing anything that they're not supposed to be doing. They're putting sectors of the American economy in danger of collapse, they're not committing crimes left and right, and their services are satisfactory for most people.

  • Starlink should be globalized. A planet only needs one low-altitude orbiting communications network. Better to standardize the technology and platform and let them contribute to one system than to have a dozen identical competing systems crashing into each other and fucking things up for everyone.

    Ah. My Kessler syndrome is acting up again.

  • The automotive manufacturers General Motors and Chrysler were partially nationalized in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis as were several banks... these were less a full government takeover and more of a government guided restructuring, but the government owned large stakes in these companies. Before that, the only full nationalization of anything substantial was the bankruptcy of the Penn Central Railroad and subsequent establishment of Consolidated Rail (branded as ConRail) the US's only national freight rail company.

    Conrail was later privatized into what is now the private companies CSX and Norfolk Southern. The collapse of Penn Central was the largest bankruptcy in history until Enron in the 1990's. Amtrak, our national passenger rail corporation, is also a nationalized entity created around the same time as ConRail, for similar reasons, and is still nationalized (although the Trump admin wants to privatize it).

    Didn't know about Amtrak. Interesting. Thanks

  • They weren't as typical with previous SpaceX models, Starship is easily their least successful project.

    Since SpaceX is launching large quantities of commercial satellites, big whoop, do you also celebrate when companies buy back stocks?

    Why would I celebrate stock buybacks?

    Also spacex lost like 20 or so Falcons before their first successful mission. Maybe they will explode as many Starships, but they have hit that number yet.

    It’s ok to hate Elon, and there are many valid criticisms to make regarding spacex, but they’re the best in the world right now and it isn’t even close.

    The biggest issue with Spacex is that Elon needs to be removed before he ruins it like he ruined Tesla.

  • you just defend his right to run spacex on specialK.

    Is not the US "the land of the free" ?
    Obviously he has the right to run SpaceX, like you have the right to try to build another one.

    But obviously you seems to not understand what are the implication of setting this kind of precedent and all the implications that will arise. But that's ok, after all the only important thing is to hate Musk.

    ffs have better standards in your selection of contractors. or perhaps you're on too much horse tranq too.

  • you just defend his right to run spacex on specialK.

    Is not the US "the land of the free" ?
    Obviously he has the right to run SpaceX, like you have the right to try to build another one.

    But obviously you seems to not understand what are the implication of setting this kind of precedent and all the implications that will arise. But that's ok, after all the only important thing is to hate Musk.

    But obviously you seems to not understand

    Yeah, and obviously, you only have a passing familiarity with the english language.

  • I don't give two flying fucks who runs space x. Once again. I'm not defending Elon in anyway.

    I am expressing my concern about the United States government nationalizing a private company. You're still making bassless assumptions. Pull your head out of your own ass and actually think about what I'm saying before spouting off at the mouth.

    then defend his drug use. defend doge. come on, make rational arguments for the bullshit, oh, you can't, that's why you're down to insults.

    look fuckwit, you couldn't find your point with a flashlight and a map, and you're telling me to remove my rectum from MY CRANIUM? You want a man addled on horse tranq to run the only company producing orbital launch for the US.

    I think it's your head that's rectum-fied. In fact, this entire discourse is dragging me down to your level. Gonna block you, should have done it before. Enjoy your ketamine kid, hope when he's responsible for killing astronauts you pause and reflect.

    pfft

  • I strongly suspect NASA can manage spaceX better than the ketamine kid. Why don’t you give a fuck about those astronauts who have to put their faith in his hardware? why don’t you give a fuck about the kids who are growing up in an age where that drug addled prick is put up as an icon of success?

    ROTFL, SpaceX managed 259 launch in 2024, show me how many launch managed NASA, if they are more than maybe you are right, else...

    You think my dislike of Musk is all of spaceX. I don't want him ruining spaceX. Musk is responsible for the launch cadence that keeps exploding, if you'd like to make comparisons.

  • then defend his drug use. defend doge. come on, make rational arguments for the bullshit, oh, you can't, that's why you're down to insults.

    look fuckwit, you couldn't find your point with a flashlight and a map, and you're telling me to remove my rectum from MY CRANIUM? You want a man addled on horse tranq to run the only company producing orbital launch for the US.

    I think it's your head that's rectum-fied. In fact, this entire discourse is dragging me down to your level. Gonna block you, should have done it before. Enjoy your ketamine kid, hope when he's responsible for killing astronauts you pause and reflect.

    pfft

    Absolute moron. You absolute moron. Once again my argument is about nationalizing a private company.

    Is there anything that you'd like to talk about concerning that!

  • You think my dislike of Musk is all of spaceX. I don't want him ruining spaceX. Musk is responsible for the launch cadence that keeps exploding, if you'd like to make comparisons.

    Wait a minute. It is not that NASA when developed the rocket that culminated with the Apollo V did not even had a rocket exploding, they had their fair share of failures (and some even letal).

    But the main difference is that SpaceX and NASA have different approaches: NASA cannot, for various polical reasons, tolerate a rocket exploding during a test, SpaceX can.
    I would argue that NASA, in its current incarnation and political situation, would never be able to design, build and manage something like the Falcon 9.

    So Musk is not ruining SpaceX with the Starship failures in my opinion, since it is inherent to SpaceX that way to work.

    Then that Musk is sometime a little too borderline is true, but I suppose that now he cannot really ruin any of his companies, for whatever you can think about him I really doubt that he is that stupid.

  • Stop cutting their funding and saying the earth is flat and that global warming is a myth.

    Stop cutting their funding

    Stop electing stupid people and maybe you will get something.

    and saying the earth is flat

    Stop treating every opinion as worth of discussion even if it is clearly stupid.

    and that global warming is a myth.

    Start to propose some reasonable solutions and start to pass over the NIMBY syndrome.
    (and no, only stopping to use ICE cars or fossil fuel is not a reasonable solution until you propose a sustainable alternative solution)

  • Wait a minute. It is not that NASA when developed the rocket that culminated with the Apollo V did not even had a rocket exploding, they had their fair share of failures (and some even letal).

    But the main difference is that SpaceX and NASA have different approaches: NASA cannot, for various polical reasons, tolerate a rocket exploding during a test, SpaceX can.
    I would argue that NASA, in its current incarnation and political situation, would never be able to design, build and manage something like the Falcon 9.

    So Musk is not ruining SpaceX with the Starship failures in my opinion, since it is inherent to SpaceX that way to work.

    Then that Musk is sometime a little too borderline is true, but I suppose that now he cannot really ruin any of his companies, for whatever you can think about him I really doubt that he is that stupid.

    is not that NASA when developed the rocket that culminated with the Apollo V did not even had a rocket exploding

    dude english, wtf is this sentence even supposed to say? are you an LLM?

    fucking hell.

    Then that Musk is sometime a little too borderline is true, but I suppose that now he cannot really ruin any of his companies, for whatever you can think about him I really doubt that he is that stupid.

    again with the word salad. english better be your third or 4th language.

    if you doubt his stupidity, then evaluate the logic of doing large amounts OF HORSE TRANQUALIZER WHILE MANAGING MULTIPLE COMPANIES AND LAUNCHING ROCKETS.

    Come on, make that one make sense word salad llm

  • is not that NASA when developed the rocket that culminated with the Apollo V did not even had a rocket exploding

    dude english, wtf is this sentence even supposed to say? are you an LLM?

    fucking hell.

    Then that Musk is sometime a little too borderline is true, but I suppose that now he cannot really ruin any of his companies, for whatever you can think about him I really doubt that he is that stupid.

    again with the word salad. english better be your third or 4th language.

    if you doubt his stupidity, then evaluate the logic of doing large amounts OF HORSE TRANQUALIZER WHILE MANAGING MULTIPLE COMPANIES AND LAUNCHING ROCKETS.

    Come on, make that one make sense word salad llm

    is not that NASA when developed the rocket that culminated with the Apollo V did not even had a rocket exploding
    

    dude english, wtf is this sentence even supposed to say? are you an LLM?

    Nope, just a regular guy that do not speak English as first language.

    But let me rephrase it, even if i am sure you understand what I mean.
    When NASA was developing the rocket to go to the moon (the Apollo V) they had their large shares of failures, exactly like SpaceX is having now while developing Starship (and before it, the Falcon 9) which is even more complex and bigger than the Apollo V.

    Then that Musk is sometime a little too borderline is true, but I suppose that now he cannot really ruin any of his companies, for whatever you can think about him I really doubt that he is that stupid.
    

    again with the word salad. english better be your third or 4th language.

    You are right. But again, I am sure you understand what I mean, but ok, let me rephrase also this.
    Musk is sometime too borderline but I suppose that actually he really don't want to ruin his companies because, for bad as you can think about him, I think is not that stupid.

    if you doubt his stupidity, then evaluate the logic of doing large amounts OF HORSE TRANQUALIZER WHILE MANAGING MULTIPLE COMPANIES AND LAUNCHING ROCKETS.

    Come on, make that one make sense word salad llm

    Wait, do you really think that Musk is the one that is doing all the jobs at Tesla and SpaceX ?
    Again, you can think what you want about Musk himself, but the track record for SpaceX (over 250 launch in 2024) and Tesla (it demostrated something that every other car manufacturer deemed impossible) does not seems too bad.
    And I would like to have an estimate about the "large amounts"

    But feel free to attack my grammar and hate Musk.

  • It is usually due to "budget cuts" as the easiest way to kill a project is to defend it.

    Juno Jupiter flyby

    Maven mission to mars

    New horizons kbo flyby

    Terra mission-earth science satellite

    Aqua mission -earth science satellite

    DSCOVR

    SLS-which may actually be a bad program but is a good example of the political issues with NASA vs senate.

    Juno Jupiter flyby

    But Juno went to Jupiter?

  • Juno Jupiter flyby

    But Juno went to Jupiter?

    These programs require continuous funding. The probe went to Jupiter. The scientist and listening stations back on earth still have to run to receive the data.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Don't buy into the grifts. Dismantle them.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    we should probably invest in making sure people have affordable housing, food, and healthcare before worrying about militarising space.

  • is not that NASA when developed the rocket that culminated with the Apollo V did not even had a rocket exploding
    

    dude english, wtf is this sentence even supposed to say? are you an LLM?

    Nope, just a regular guy that do not speak English as first language.

    But let me rephrase it, even if i am sure you understand what I mean.
    When NASA was developing the rocket to go to the moon (the Apollo V) they had their large shares of failures, exactly like SpaceX is having now while developing Starship (and before it, the Falcon 9) which is even more complex and bigger than the Apollo V.

    Then that Musk is sometime a little too borderline is true, but I suppose that now he cannot really ruin any of his companies, for whatever you can think about him I really doubt that he is that stupid.
    

    again with the word salad. english better be your third or 4th language.

    You are right. But again, I am sure you understand what I mean, but ok, let me rephrase also this.
    Musk is sometime too borderline but I suppose that actually he really don't want to ruin his companies because, for bad as you can think about him, I think is not that stupid.

    if you doubt his stupidity, then evaluate the logic of doing large amounts OF HORSE TRANQUALIZER WHILE MANAGING MULTIPLE COMPANIES AND LAUNCHING ROCKETS.

    Come on, make that one make sense word salad llm

    Wait, do you really think that Musk is the one that is doing all the jobs at Tesla and SpaceX ?
    Again, you can think what you want about Musk himself, but the track record for SpaceX (over 250 launch in 2024) and Tesla (it demostrated something that every other car manufacturer deemed impossible) does not seems too bad.
    And I would like to have an estimate about the "large amounts"

    But feel free to attack my grammar and hate Musk.

    When NASA was developing the rocket to go to the moon (the Apollo V) they had their large shares of failures, exactly like SpaceX is having now while developing Starship (and before it, the Falcon 9) which is even more complex and bigger than the Apollo V.

    this is a specious comparison. NASA was racing the soviets using 1950 and 60's tech, and it cost lives, but there was a driving motivation for the tempo (kennedy's goal of humans on the moon first). There's no contemporary equivalent. And no NASA director was EVER ON HORSE DRUGS. Period.

    Nor did any NASA director ever try to manage multiple fortune 500 companies WHILE on ketamine while DANCING AROUND WITH A CHAINSAW and fucking with our government.

    Your comparison is invalid.

    Wait, do you really think that Musk is the one that is doing all the jobs at Tesla and SpaceX ?

    No, I think he's distorting the work of thousands of talented people (Shotwell down) for EGO. If he truly cared he'd step down.

    None of this is complex. I'm glad you speak english well enough to reorder your thoughts in a comprehensible manner, but the premise remains unchanged. Musk represents a larger threat to SpaceX and NASA and the US than any potential benefit to those same parties.

    I will feel free to attack musk, didn't need your permission but thanks!

  • When NASA was developing the rocket to go to the moon (the Apollo V) they had their large shares of failures, exactly like SpaceX is having now while developing Starship (and before it, the Falcon 9) which is even more complex and bigger than the Apollo V.

    this is a specious comparison. NASA was racing the soviets using 1950 and 60's tech, and it cost lives, but there was a driving motivation for the tempo (kennedy's goal of humans on the moon first). There's no contemporary equivalent. And no NASA director was EVER ON HORSE DRUGS. Period.

    Nor did any NASA director ever try to manage multiple fortune 500 companies WHILE on ketamine while DANCING AROUND WITH A CHAINSAW and fucking with our government.

    Your comparison is invalid.

    Wait, do you really think that Musk is the one that is doing all the jobs at Tesla and SpaceX ?

    No, I think he's distorting the work of thousands of talented people (Shotwell down) for EGO. If he truly cared he'd step down.

    None of this is complex. I'm glad you speak english well enough to reorder your thoughts in a comprehensible manner, but the premise remains unchanged. Musk represents a larger threat to SpaceX and NASA and the US than any potential benefit to those same parties.

    I will feel free to attack musk, didn't need your permission but thanks!

    When NASA was developing the rocket to go to the moon (the Apollo V) they had their large shares of failures, exactly like SpaceX is having now while developing Starship (and before it, the Falcon 9) which is even more complex and bigger than the Apollo V.

    this is a specious comparison. NASA was racing the soviets using 1950 and 60’s tech, and it cost lives, but there was a driving motivation for the tempo (kennedy’s goal of humans on the moon first). There’s no contemporary equivalent. And no NASA director was EVER ON HORSE DRUGS. Period.

    Your comparison is invalid.

    Only if you could link the fact that Musk is on horse drugs with the fact that Starship explodes.
    The starting point was that I dismissed the point that Musk is ruining SpaceX (since Starship's test are not that good) and the fact that he is on drugs.

    Nor did any NASA director ever try to manage multiple fortune 500 companies WHILE on ketamine while DANCING AROUND WITH A CHAINSAW and fucking with our government.

    I don't see the problem: NASA was a state agency, SpaceX is private.
    What I can see from here is that Musk is doing the right thing (trying to make the government more efficient and cheaper) using a completely wrong method, to which I agree.

    Wait, do you really think that Musk is the one that is doing all the jobs at Tesla and SpaceX ?

    No, I think he’s distorting the work of thousands of talented people (Shotwell down) for EGO. If he truly cared he’d step down.

    I don't think it could do it anymore, at least not to the level you think.

    Musk represents a larger threat to SpaceX and NASA and the US than any potential benefit to those same parties.

    I am not sure. What I think from here (Europe) is that, as I said, Musk is doing the right thing in the wrong (very wrong) way if we speak about DOGE. If we speak about SpaceX and Tesla, well, it don't seems to do that bad after all.

  • When NASA was developing the rocket to go to the moon (the Apollo V) they had their large shares of failures, exactly like SpaceX is having now while developing Starship (and before it, the Falcon 9) which is even more complex and bigger than the Apollo V.

    this is a specious comparison. NASA was racing the soviets using 1950 and 60’s tech, and it cost lives, but there was a driving motivation for the tempo (kennedy’s goal of humans on the moon first). There’s no contemporary equivalent. And no NASA director was EVER ON HORSE DRUGS. Period.

    Your comparison is invalid.

    Only if you could link the fact that Musk is on horse drugs with the fact that Starship explodes.
    The starting point was that I dismissed the point that Musk is ruining SpaceX (since Starship's test are not that good) and the fact that he is on drugs.

    Nor did any NASA director ever try to manage multiple fortune 500 companies WHILE on ketamine while DANCING AROUND WITH A CHAINSAW and fucking with our government.

    I don't see the problem: NASA was a state agency, SpaceX is private.
    What I can see from here is that Musk is doing the right thing (trying to make the government more efficient and cheaper) using a completely wrong method, to which I agree.

    Wait, do you really think that Musk is the one that is doing all the jobs at Tesla and SpaceX ?

    No, I think he’s distorting the work of thousands of talented people (Shotwell down) for EGO. If he truly cared he’d step down.

    I don't think it could do it anymore, at least not to the level you think.

    Musk represents a larger threat to SpaceX and NASA and the US than any potential benefit to those same parties.

    I am not sure. What I think from here (Europe) is that, as I said, Musk is doing the right thing in the wrong (very wrong) way if we speak about DOGE. If we speak about SpaceX and Tesla, well, it don't seems to do that bad after all.

    I don’t see the problem: NASA was a state agency, SpaceX is private.

    lives are literally at stake, grow the fuck up.

    Elon Musk decided to wreck USAID. The death toll is ghoulish. This dickwad said "the fundamental weakness of western civilization is empathy".

    If we speak about SpaceX and Tesla, well, it don’t seems to do that bad after all.

    haha tesla is cratering in the EU and that cybertruck sure is a winner. pfft

    You are so detached from reality it's disgusting. This discussion has been absolutely pointless.

  • 54 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    C
    "mistakes"
  • 40K IoT cameras worldwide stream secrets to anyone with a browser.

    Technology technology
    18
    1
    120 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    T
    For the Emperor!
  • 991 Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • 221 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    V
    Does it mean that some people take orders from AI and don't know it's AI ?
  • 3 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    S
    The free option is not sustainable and does not reward the correct customer/business relationship.
  • Microsoft's AI Secretly Copying All Your Private Messages

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    S
    Forgive me for not explaining better. Here are the terms potentially needing explanation. Provisioning in this case is initial system setup, the kind of stuff you would do manually after a fresh install, but usually implies a regimented and repeatable process. Virtual Machine (VM) snapshots are like a save state in a game, and are often used to reset a virtual machine to a particular known-working condition. Preboot Execution Environment (PXE, aka ‘network boot’) is a network adapter feature that lets you boot a physical machine from a hosted network image rather than the usual installation on locally attached storage. It’s probably tucked away in your BIOS settings, but many computers have the feature since it’s a common requirement in commercial deployments. As with the VM snapshot described above, a PXE image is typically a known-working state that resets on each boot. Non-virtualized means not using hardware virtualization, and I meant specifically not running inside a virtual machine. Local-only means without a network or just not booting from a network-hosted image. Telemetry refers to data collecting functionality. Most software has it. Windows has a lot. Telemetry isn’t necessarily bad since it can, for example, help reveal and resolve bugs and usability problems, but it is easily (and has often been) abused by data-hungry corporations like MS, so disabling it is an advisable precaution. MS = Microsoft OSS = Open Source Software Group policies are administrative settings in Windows that control standards (for stuff like security, power management, licensing, file system and settings access, etc.) for user groups on a machine or network. Most users stick with the defaults but you can edit these yourself for a greater degree of control. Docker lets you run software inside “containers” to isolate them from the rest of the environment, exposing and/or virtualizing just the resources they need to run, and Compose is a related tool for defining one or more of these containers, how they interact, etc. To my knowledge there is no one-to-one equivalent for Windows. Obviously, many of these concepts relate to IT work, as are the use-cases I had in mind, but the software is simple enough for the average user if you just pick one of the premade playbooks. (The Atlas playbook is popular among gamers, for example.) Edit: added explanations for docker and telemetry
  • 0 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    F
    It's an actively hostile act, regardless of what your beliefs are on the copyright system.
  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    thehatfox@lemmy.worldT
    The platform owners don’t consider engagement to me be participation in meaningful discourse. Engagement to them just means staying on the platform while seeing ads. If bots keep people doing that those platforms will keep letting them in.