• TronBronson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    12 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
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours 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
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 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.

        • Fenrisulfir@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          I fully agree. Any industry that can’t survive on its own and needs public funds, shouldn’t exist. If it’s an essential service it should be nationalized.

          • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            So you want Donald Trump in charge of the telecom industry and any other industries that have received some sort of public subsidy?

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

                This is the same mistake everyone makes. They think Donald Trump is just a person. That he actually matters and we just have to get rid of him and everything will be okay.

                It doesn’t work that way.

                As fascism didn’t die with Hitler, it’s not going to die with Trump. All of the problems — all of the rifts in our society — will still be there when he’s gone.

    • Omega@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 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
      5
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      12 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
        30
        ·
        11 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.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          let’s not forget the agency that launched the probe that passed the edge of the solar system and is still functional and doing valuable things…… in the 70s

            • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 hours ago

              which part? it’s still transmitting right? and they got useful and interesting data from it only a few years ago

              • outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                5 hours ago

                No, honey, it’s 2025.

                I don’t know what happened to you, but im so fucking sorry.

                Edit: you can down vote me all you want. It doesn’t change the truth. Odds are everyone you knew is dead.

                • tyler@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  What are you talking about. They were saying nasa sent it to space in the 70s and it’s still functioning.

      • Senal@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 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
          6
          ·
          9 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.

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

            SpaceX has an internal team that works to make sure Musk can’t interfere with anything, because he’s so bad at managing businesses. Gwynne Shotwell is the one in charge of SpaceX.

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

              I am not surprised in the slightest. I mean if you have a bunch of smart, highly motivated people it sounds like keeping the crazy man at arms length is the kind of thing they’d organise very effectively.

          • Senal@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Absolutely agree with this but there is no denying the innovation levels at spacex are higher

            Undeniably, they’ve been doing amazing work (at least from my rocketry technology peasant point of view).

        • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          11 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
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 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.