Is Elon Musk the greatest visionary or the greatest snake oil salesman of our age?

[Rimbaud]

Yeah, he's also trying to foil the US defence establishment's goals there and that seems...foolhardy to say the least. I'm sure they have some eggs in his baskets - starlink and spacex - but I'm equally sure they could survive without him. If he carries on pulling shit like this he might find out what happens when all government funding gets pulled from his ventures.

It's a matter of time before he ends up in front of a committee to answer for this kind of thing. He's playing a very stupid game.

 

[a_chap]

Sooner or later, increasing human activity in Earth's orbital space was always going to lead to sensitive observations from the Earth's surface becoming increasingly untenable. Looks like it was sooner than most people expected. Time to start work on building observatories on the Lunar far side.

Why on the far side?

 

[NoXion]

Why on the far side?

Because it's out of the line of sight from Earth, and would thus be shielded from radio and optical emissions.

 

[Storm Fox]

I like the term “light treason”.

Gives the impression of a wholesome late morning activity partaken of after a lie in and a breakfast of kedgeree and the previous evening’s leftover wine.

I nicked the term from 'Arrested Development'

 

[cupid_stunt]

Musk Secretly Used Starlink to Foil Ukrainian Drone Attack on Russian Ships: Report

The billlionaire allegedly feared the strike on Crimea could trigger nuclear war.

www.thedailybeast.com

Fuck. Ing. Hell.

More on that from the New York Times...

Elon Musk Acknowledges Withholding Satellite Service to Thwart Ukrainian Attack

Elon Musk has acknowledged that he denied satellite internet service in order to prevent a Ukrainian drone attack on a Russian naval fleet last year, prompting an angry response from a Ukrainian official.

Tosser.

 

[a_chap]

A bullet's too good for him.

 

[NoXion]

A bullet's too good for him.

Well that's apposite, since I believe the traditional penalty for such perfidy is hanging.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I like the term “light treason”.

Gives the impression of a wholesome late morning activity, partaken of after a lie in and a breakfast consisting of kedgeree and the previous evening’s leftover wine.

... or maybe the low-fat version of treason.

 

[BigMoaner]

Live this from Deluze back in the 90s. Reminds me so much if Twitter, musk.

It’s not a problem of getting people to express themselves but of providing little gaps of solitude and silence in which they might eventually find something to say. Repressive forces don’t stop people from expressing themselves but rather force them to express themselves. What a relief to have nothing to say, the right to say nothing, because only then is there a chance of framing the rare, and ever rarer, thing that might be worth saying.

 

[BigMoaner]

We have lost the ability to linger - Buying Chul Han.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

 

[BigMoaner]

I'm being thick but I don't get it. What's the other type? Putting my head above the pit but don't care. Confused.

 

[Humberto]

Heralded as a business visionary, also happened to be fascist/racist/egomaniac?

 

[Rob Ray]

I'm being thick but I don't get it. What's the other type? Putting my head above the pit but don't care. Confused.

One type thinks Henry Ford was an industrialist and visionary, the other knows Ford was a piece of shit.

 

[BigMoaner]

One type thinks Henry Ford was an industrialist and visionary, the other knows Ford was a piece of shit.

Ah I see thanks

 

[DaveCinzano]

I'm being thick but I don't get it. What's the other type? Putting my head above the pit but don't care. Confused.

 

[two sheds]

Believes disinformation and hate speech should be protected as free speech

Elon Musk’s X sues California over new social media transparency laws

The company, formerly known as Twitter, argued an assembly bill violates its free speech rights under the first amendment

www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk’s X sued California on Friday, challenging the constitutionality of a state law establishing new transparency requirements for social media companies, including how they police disinformation, hate speech and extremism.

X, the social media platform once called Twitter, said the law, known as Assembly Bill 587, violates its free speech rights under the US constitution’s first amendment and California’s state constitution.

In a complaint filed in federal court in Sacramento, California, X said the law’s “true intent” was to pressure social media companies into eliminating content the state found objectionable.

also covers calling people pedos, clearly.

 

[kabbes]

Do you think he genuinely doesn’t understand the contradiction between suing to protect saying anything you like on the one hand and suing people that say he’s being antisemitic on the other?

 

[two sheds]

Good point and I'm not sure, I don't think he cares though.

 

[Santino]

Do you think he genuinely doesn’t understand the contradiction between suing to protect saying anything you like on the one hand and suing people that say he’s being antisemitic on the other?

I guess you could believe in the absolute right to say anything, and the right to sue people for saying things that cause you legally-quantifiable harm.

 

[Dogsauce]

Believes disinformation and hate speech should be protected as free speech

Elon Musk’s X sues California over new social media transparency laws

The company, formerly known as Twitter, argued an assembly bill violates its free speech rights under the first amendment

www.theguardian.com

also covers calling people pedos, clearly.

But doesn’t cover Ukrainian commanders trying to communicate with their naval drones, obviously. What about their free speech?

 

[DaveCinzano]

But doesn’t cover Ukrainian commanders trying to communicate with their naval drones, obviously. What about their free speech?

If they don't like how Muskland is run, they should go and live in Russia

 

[Rob Ray]

But not Saudi Arabia, as Muskland incorporates investment from notable free speech advocate Mohammed bin Salman al Saud, aka "Hack-em-up Sal"

 

[kabbes]

I guess you could believe in the absolute right to say anything, and the right to sue people for saying things that cause you legally-quantifiable harm.

Then you don’t believe in the absolute right to say anything. “You can say it and then you’ll face consequences” is the same thing regardless of whether those consequences are financial or criminal.

 

[bimble]

Then you don’t believe in the absolute right to say anything. “You can say it and then you’ll face consequences” is the same thing regardless of whether those consequences are financial or criminal.

Unconvinced face. You can believe in whatever you want whilst also knowing that the laws of where you live may punish you for it. I don’t think it’s about ignorance of the law it’s a theological sort of thing, with these simpleminded freespeechers, they feel they should be entitled to say whatever they like, he is just in a slightly odd position of being able to dance that line more than the next person because of money.

 

[belboid]

Then you don’t believe in the absolute right to say anything. “You can say it and then you’ll face consequences” is the same thing regardless of whether those consequences are financial or criminal.

Nonsense. Refusing the consequences of your speech means refusing the right of those who disagree to reply. It’s the purely Muskian version of free speech.

 

[kabbes]

Then on what grounds is he claiming the right for reparations post-speech and how does that differ from the state claiming reparations post-speech?

 

[belboid]

Who is ‘he’?

‘Absolute’ free speech is nonsense, it doesn’t exist. It’s a trap to confound ‘defend the enlightenment’ liberals and they fall for it far too often.

 

[tim]

Who is ‘he’?

‘Absolute’ free speech is nonsense, it doesn’t exist. It’s a trap to confound ‘defend the enlightenment’ liberals and they fall for it far too often.

I don't agree with you but I defend your right to say it.

 

[bimble]

Then on what grounds is he claiming the right for reparations post-speech and how does that differ from the state claiming reparations post-speech?

This is surprising from you . On what grounds? Are you a lawyer or a psychologist? He’s not really gonna sue them . He has a primitive conviction that he should be able to do and say whatever he fancies and other people are either acolytes or inconveniences, i imagine it’s something simple like that.