• Deflated0ne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Has anyone considered funding NASA?

    They made rockets that didn’t explode with duct tape and a TI-83 calculator.

  • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    14 minutes ago

    Yeah, let’s give the trump administration the power to seize companies it doesn’t like, that is a great idea that def won’t be abused all the time

  • Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    37 minutes ago

    Starlink should not just be nationalized but internationalized.
    It is internet for everyone on earth, not everyone in the USA.

    Every larger nation deploying their own constellation would be a pointless waste of resources, and every smaller nation having to find reliable partner-nations to tap into for that internet access would inevitably lead to people ending up without access due to political games.

    Low orbit satellite constellations are the perfect candidate for sharing, they would literally sit unused over most of their orbits otherwise.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 minutes ago

      I think every larger nation deploying their own constellation would reduce people losing access due to political games.

      If there’s only one network with the same topology as Starlink, then the USA, China, or Russia will end up making a bunch of rules on everyone else just like Elon does today. Look how the USA abuses centralized internet infrastructure already. Multiple overlapping systems would be wastefully redundant, but reduces the risk of censorship.

      We can’t get along and can’t have nice things.

    • Salamand@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 minutes ago

      Agreed. But also commies believe that when the state takes something, “we” will get it (and they fail to see why states sponsor their useful idiocy)

    • burghler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 hour ago

      American exceptionalism is so fucking annoying. Their country is failing to a point hopefully this first person shit rightfully corrects to third person.

  • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Lets reach a compromise. Impeach Trump (successfully) and then take away SpaceX from Elon. That way things would be fair.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Trump has been impeached successfully. Twice. What I assume you mean is that he hasn’t been removed from office. That could be the consequence of an impeachment, but not necessarily.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        For whatever reasons Musk has found himself as ceo of some wildly successful visionary companies. It has not changed that they are finally bringing the future to the present, disrupting old technologies in favor of newer and better, for a better world. And the musk from before his breakdown deserves a lot of credit.

        At this point I no longer care about musk either, but SpaceX and Tesla are critical. Or at least SpaceX is. Tesla has not yet finished disrupting vehicle manufacturing , but if we’re content to let Chinese companies go ahead, they’re ready and willing. Legacy manufacturers have been slapped up the side of the face, but if they’re still not awake at this point it’s on them

        • hornedfiend@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 hour ago

          I’m sorry, but credit for what? For being born privileged and buying talent? If you can’t beat ‘em, buy ‘em, right?

          Yeah, I guess he deserves praise for being a good liar and basically selling pipe dreams?

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 hour ago

            Tesla was started by a handful of really smart people with a great idea. Musk was ceo as it grew from an idea into the first new major automaker in almost a century. As it grew from a dismissed toy that no one would buy, into an industry-wide paradigm shift. Most of that time musk preached the gospel. You can’t disregard that influence, you can’t claim the guy in charge had nothing to do with it. You might decide his skill was more manipulative than visionary, but you can’t deny that him being the front man was part of the success. You might decide any engineering or problem solving ability was not real, but he was the guy in charge, he did make decisions, and Tesla has generally been a huge success (until recently).

            We just need some drug rehab and find a way to reset the god complex ….

            • hornedfiend@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              35 minutes ago

              Sure, I mean technically paypal was a rather innovative idea for its time, but again, the guy basically associated himself with smart people that had bright ideas.

              Yes, he does have a knack for growing businesses to a larger scale, but most millionaires/ billionaires do, cause they outsource brain matter and decision making to a select few.

              I’m not sure if I ever liked the guy or his largely exaggerated marketing, but being a POS nazi isn’t helping either, so i’m biased towards nazi hate I guess. Either way, he will need a paradigm shift for people to accept him back into the decent human beings club. I do hope he will find a way, but doubt it really.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          56 minutes ago

          Sure, he gets credit for building hype and getting investors on board. He’s a decent salesman, and probably decent at business in general.

          I don’t care if he’s rich or not, he’s relatively harmless when it comes to things I care about. Trump, on the other hand, is dangerous because he seems to work off vibes and compliments, and that’s scary.

  • reksas@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Just having such wealth and thus power in hands of singular humans is risk to all of humanity. With musk you are but big enough drug fueled temper tantrum away from pretty important infrastructure coming crashing down.

  • reivilo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Quite ironic from people constantly accusing their political adversaries to be communists…

    • Ecco the dolphin@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Errr… am I mistaken? This is the first time I’m hearing about nationalizing SpaceX and it’s from Jacobin…

      Does Jacobin make a habit of calling people communists? Pretty sure they advocate for socialist positions usually…

      big spiderman pointing at spiderman vibes if true

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Well that’s not really the case. Conservatives will accuse progressive of being communists, and claim any social services are examples of communism. But it’s mostly those progressives here on Lemmy suggesting communist ideas.

      So it’s not really ironic, just unsurprising I guess.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    7 hours ago

    You could always just fund the space agency you already have, instead of funneling money to a foreign billionaire.

    • TronBronson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      No this the one time I’m with the commies. Nationalize that shit. Like you said it’s all taxpayer money anyway. A little bit of Wall Street speculation, but who gives a fuck about those people

      • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 minutes ago

        this the one time I’m with the commies

        Are you against universal and free healthcare, education and retirement? Are you against improving worker rights, paid holidays, sick leave, guaranteed housing and guaranteed employment? Are you against unionisation of workplaces and collective worker decisions mattering in business? Are you against heavy regulation against climate change and pollution of the environment? Are you against anti-racism, feminism, anti-fascism and the redistribution of wealth from the richest to the poorest? I’m sure you have a lot more common ground with us commies than you think

      • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 hours ago

        all taxpayer money anyway

        Yes but with very little to show for it. If the government just treated all undelivered orders as debt, it would end up deep in the red.

      • Omega@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        it’ll be sold to the highest bidder is my bet

        I would find it funny that billionaires would pass off the opportunity of taking musk’s position on a discount

      • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        6 hours ago

        NASA was always there and they couldn’t achieve what SpaceX has while simultaneously having a lot more capital to do so. I’m sorry but if there’s any proof that private sector’s self interest is a better driver of innovation than common interest SpaceX is it. This is a terrible idea that sounds like a good idea if you do not understand how good Musk was and is at cutting costs. That’s his actual real skill in business and is well documented. Doesn’t make him less of a prick but you also cannot downplay what he has achieved with this company.

        • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          5 hours ago

          The agency that landed people on the moon so long ago most of the people involved have died if old age, and the event will soon pass out of living memory?

          The one where when they let a single rocket explode, one time, rocked the nation, because their record was so close to flawless?

          The one that constantly gives us new sources for scientific data?

          Yeah fuck them. They never made a dick rocket.

        • Senal@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          6 hours ago

          You mean the NASA who landed people on the moon?

          So let’s assume you aren’t a moon landing denier and use that as a baseline, NASA is clearly capable of things given the right circumstances and budget.

          SpaceX benefited from his reputation and money, because they sure as shit didn’t benefit from his technical acumen.

          Business wise he is successful because he’s rich and influential and that works to mitigate how shitty he is at actually running an organisation, that doesn’t mean he has skills as a business person that means he has money and influence, in his case originally from the mine, then from buying and bullying his was in to businesses that were technologically sound and boosting them with his money.

          You could make an argument he’s a relatively good investor, but he’s an actively bad CEO.

          • khannie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 hours ago

            NASA is clearly capable of things given the right circumstances and budget.

            Absolutely agree with this but there is no denying the innovation levels at spacex are higher (I’m not saying this is down to musk specifically. The man is a horror story of a human).

            We were all in total awe when seeing booster stages land themselves successfully for the first time. It was such a giant leap forward and to the best of my knowledge no government funded space agency was even considering it before spacex.

          • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            They landed people on the moon and then did fuck all for decades.

            When Musk started SpaceX he was not well known yet, SpaceX came before Tesla.

            He was able to get into the businesses he has because he was rich yes, but you can find many accounts of engineers that worked under him speak of how good he was at finding ways to cut unnecessary costs.

            He’s not a technical genius that’s for sure. But he has been a good CEO for SpaceX. Terrible one for Tesla though, mostly because he bought into his own myth and became a drug addict. But I refuse to simply wave away his achievements simply because I don’t like him. I can not like someone and still acknowledge they have done something good.

            • Senal@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 hours ago

              They landed people on the moon and then did fuck all for decades.

              Indeed, all i was saying is that they were capable given budget and circumstances.

              That budget and direction comes from the government.

              When Musk started SpaceX he was not well known yet, SpaceX came before Tesla.

              I will admit, i thought spacex was just another company he bought his way in to, like tesla, seems i was mistaken about that.

              He was able to get into the businesses he has because he was rich yes, but you can find many accounts of engineers that worked under him speak of how good he was at finding ways to cut unnecessary costs.

              And you can equally find many accounts of having to distract him from the day to day operations because he’s unreliable , unpredictable and chaotic (none of those meant in a good way).

              He’s also known for buying good press and using litigation to silence people.

              He’s not a technical genius that’s for sure. But he has been a good CEO for SpaceX.

              I doubt this, but that could just be bias, i don’t have any actual evidence of the long term impact of him as CEO.

              Recently though, he’s provably been significantly more of a liability than a benefit, even if just from a PR and public sentiment point of view.

              But I refuse to simply wave away his achievements simply because I don’t like him. I can not like someone and still acknowledge they have done something good.

              Indeed, i push back on the myth that he’s some self made tony stark genius, but it isn’t like he’s not achieved anything.

              I would personally attribute most of that to neptoism, wealth, luck and opportunity, but that doesn’t remove the achievement itself.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      This is the thing, NASA is underfunded as it is, if we nationalized SpaceX, we wouldn’t actually continue to fund it appropriately and it would simply die. Actually, with trump at the helm, nationalizing it would mean Trump immediately liquidating it. SpaceX is definitely the most successful rocket company in the US. It would be an awful shame for the space industry and for humanity’s future in space.

      I hate musk as much as the next guy, but I think the success of spaceX is undeniable. Their success with reusable rockets is not just impressive, it’s ground breaking and important. Developing a fully reusable rocket is probably the most important challenge humans are working on in this era, and I only know of three companies attempting to do it. I don’t want to kill the company that’s furthest along.

      • lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        You guys are so stuck in the cult of personality. WE PAID FOR EVERYTHING SPACEX DID. IT BELONGS TO US.

        • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Us? Do you own NASA? Do you have any say on how funds are assigned to NASA? No? Then it doesn’t belong to “Us” it belongs to the government, a distinct organization with different goals and motivations than “Us” the people.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Let’s say I bought you a car, I paid for it in full and then gave it to you, and in return you sometimes drive me around.

          Let’s say I get tired of this arrangement, should I repossess the car just to drive it into the ocean? What would be the point of that? Sure, it’s rightfully mine, but what good does it do to destroy it?

          “IT BELONGS TO US” is not a very compelling argument for arbitrary distribution.

      • KumaSudosa@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Of course he was always a jerk, but I still think of a reality where Elon never went (officially) Nazi and just stuck with his otherwise important companies. Tesla being an important early mover in EVs, especially in such an oil-dependent country, and all the cool stuff SpaceX has been up to.

    • TronBronson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      We just need to allow them to keep the money. They like money. Give them 10% as a finders fee and the Yes vote will be unanimous

  • blindbunny@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Giving companies to the state doesn’t always work well. However giving companies to the workers does.

    • p_kanarinac@retrolemmy.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      True. We have a lot of public owned companies in Croatia, they are the most corrupt. Big comoanies are too, but not to that extent

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      We’ve seen China give companies to the state, but have there been any large examples of giving companies to the workers?

      • TronBronson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Post Soviet Russia. There’s a fun history lesson in there. They gave stock in all the companies to all the workers. Then a couple rich people got together and tricked all the people to accumulate all the stocks. Those people became the oligarchs. And we know what happened to the workers of Russia. They all died in a trench in Ukraine very happy story.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          First of all, it was performed the way that nobody knew what to even do with those privatization vouchers. They didn’t directly give anyone stocks, just vouchers for part of a company etc. Those had to be exchanged for stocks.

          People didn’t know what to do with them, people had problems feeding their families, and people were offered some money for them. And people thought that’s what capitalism is, you get offered money for something, you give it. Nobody scams you, right?

          Since those oligarchs happened to all have right friends, it’s without any doubt not a mistake that those stocks could even be sold.

          And - attention - another history lesson. All the Soviet propaganda against religion led to everyone becoming “kinda church-loving” in the 90-s initially. All the Soviet propaganda for scientific view of the world led to thousands of sects and charlatans, together scamming most of the population. All the Soviet propaganda for honest and labor ethic led to most people not even considering such scams really scams, because in Soviet propaganda doing business was treated same as scamming someone.

          So nobody even thought what’s happening is wrong. And the part of the population which did understand was those who got the shorter stick. People losing themselves in a bottle or a needle, people literally dying from hunger, people having to do crime or prostitution or mercenary work to survive. It was an unholy kingdom where for a part of the population it seemed they are almost the middle class now, just like in those American movies and ads, and the other part saw those ads and those people daily, but could barely survive.

          And then, after a few years, the former part grew some understanding that Russia is approaching fascism, and the latter part, which already lived it since 1993, was so broken that it obeyed the fascists after they gave it a bit of a life without hunger and depression in the 00s.

          See, there is a layer of the Russian (and general ex-Soviet) culture, in vibes and emotions, showing things as they really were, but it’s horrible to look into that. It was plainly impossible for a normal person to accept some group of people like Anatoly Sobchak’s daughter as opposition. After real opposition figures were being marginalized, jailed and even murdered for a few years. After the Chechen wars. After the way that privatization happened, and the 1993. Nobody would follow people who are just a subset of the same evil, except playing clean because it’s in fashion.

          Then, of course, such a decision, so to say, made by a whole country leads to madness.

          And this is what we live since then. Those stormtroopers on crutches storming Ukrainian positions - they know that their orders come from the evil itself. They are not fighting for something or against something, only to feel that evil as more material, or take their share of the suffering, or prove something to themselves. It’s a whole society of depressed people who need to prove something to themselves, because everything around is both evil, fake and dirty, one yearns for purification. It’s desperation of the better kind of people, whether you believe it or not. The worst kind finds ways not to die. It’s even natural for humans, like best shown in Japanese culture of honorable death. In European military cultures honorable suicide was a thing, well, in 2022 a few Russian generals shot themselves. I’ve read about them.

          It’s really disgusting to be of the “fat” part of the population of these two.

      • iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I can’t think of any examples. Taking over the company requires capital, which is the one thing that capitalists constantly extract from workers so they don’t have any.

        The workers of xs4all tried when their new corporate owners, KPN, decided to dissolve them. But a combination of lack of funding and unfriendly courts prevented that. They did end up starting a new company though…

        • TronBronson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 hours ago

          It’s a shame you commies don’t know history? Do you avoid it on purpose because it interferes with your ability to make shit up and try to sound intelligent

    • TronBronson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Ya like in Russia! When all the poor got tricked out of their shares and a billionaire class was made which continued to strangle the poor for 30 years