Printable View
Pretty much what I was alluding to. SpaceX lost a Falcon recently on a sat delivery mission, absorbed the cost and set up another one. This also gave them data to improve the Falcon, which is how they have progressed so fast. Try something, find out why it didn't work, fix that and try again. All while being hampered by the EPA.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Not sure they can rely on too much future $$$ from Musk's other, well known, venture though.
I assume that you are referring to 'X'. Comparing it and SpaceX, one can only conclude that the success of SpaceX stems from a strong minded CEO who stops Musk from meddling in it, and the more time he spends at X, the better for SpaceX!
Actually, I wasn't. I have absolutely zero interest in Twitter/X, or any other antisocial media. I am surprised though at the animosity directed at Musk for having brought some balance to the platform, and his efforts to rid it of the predators. I would consider shutting down the pedophile networks that proliferated under Jack's rule to be laudable. If he lost money in the process, so what? Investors seemed to have returned.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Love him or hate him, it should be remembered that without Musk, SpaceX, StarLink, The Boring Company and Tesla would not exist, although that last one can die and go to ideological heaven for all I care. Hyperloop also. They can't all be winners. But SpaceX was able to do what NASA and Boeing could not, put Americans back in space in American built space craft, not since the Columbia disaster. And, without SpaceX it would seem likely NASA would have to go cap in hand to the Russians or someone to bring home the people on the ISS. I'm not getting all jingoistic for the Stars and Stripes, but they could use something to be proud of atm.
Should be said, I'm not anti Boeing, at all. Their management sucks, and they should never have ben allowed to become a US monopoly. They should not have "preferred" status as a supplier to NASA. But, they have designed and built some fine aircraft and hopefully will again. We don't need Airbus to become a monopoly either.
Slunnie saidQuote:
almost half of the commerical aircraft in the sky are made by Boeing and they generally don't fall out of the sky or have doors blow off.
Indeed. And both have had disasters. As "Sully" said, Air France 447 would not have happened in a Boeing aircraft. The control system would have prevented it. This of course is a design philosophy rather than a design flaw. The A330, like all modern Airbus, uses a FBW 'joystick' for each pilot, that worked independently. So the bloke in the right hand seat could apply control input without the other bloke knowing. After the death of 228 people I imagine Airbus revisited this. Boeing use a two yoke system, not independent, so any control input on one side is mirrored on the other. Better? Who knows. Haven't heard from HughJars of late, but he might have had some input.
Interestingly, from a statistical POV the safest airliner to ever fly was in all likelihood Concorde. Amazing that she flew at all really. Totally analogue joint effort between the two most unlikely peoples, a glorious, graceful and elegant missile. Incroyable.
He has effectively removed most moderation from the platform, and driven away most of his advertisers, who do not want their ads appearing next to Nazi propaganda. He has also refused to pay money owing to staff he has sacked, and similarly refused to pay suppliers or rent. (Or his lawyers!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tins
But, like you, I have little interest in antisocial media.
Musk was responsible for pushing a number of advances, although he also claims to have founded ones that he only bought into after others started them. And yes, he put his own money, mostly from selling what became known as paypal (after the other founders kicked him out because he was was impossible to work with).
Tesla and SpaceX (including its offshoot Starlink) have to be considered his major successes. The Boring Company can hardly be considered a success, and Neurolink is a disaster and ethically highly suspect. And Tesla existed before he bought into it.
In recent years, his interests seem to be mainly political, pushing extremist right wing agenda, especially against any laws trying to enforce labour or environmental or equality rules.
Steve Jobs was famously impossible to work with as well....
I would be interested in your definition of "extremist right wing". Seems to me that accusation is bandied about, aimed at those who don't follow the day's narrative. Much the same with "Nazi propaganda", imo. Of course, if the Left is to be believed, Trump is Hitler reincarnate, so on that basis you may have a point. But, he isn't. And Musk is not Goebbels.
As for making his money from PayPal etc., so what? On that metric he's just an astute businessman. The hyper rich are generally not considered to be "nice" people. Any of them. I prefer Musk, however, to George Soros. Or Klaus Schwab. There's a Nazi sympathiser for you.
The sort of stuff I am referring to is material that causes advertisers to withdraw their advertising, and advocates for discrimination against anyone who is not white, male, protestant, and heterosexual. The sort of material that is getting X into trouble with regulators in the EU and Australia.
As for the whole nazi advertiser hoo-har, this was Musks response. Read into it what you will.
Musk files defamation suit against Media Matters over antisemitic X post claims | The Independent
Yes, I am aware of this. Musk has filed a large number of suites for all sorts of claims. He has won almost none of them, and this one is unlikely to be successful, but that is not the aim - the idea is to bankrupt those defending it as they do not have such deep pockets.
I guess that depends on whether you believe GARM and the WFA are suitable guardians of sensibilities and freedom of speech. I do not. Advertisers are like sheep, easily herded.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW