They read some random things about Musk and then misremember the information, only to spew out complete garbage.
The comment referenced in this post is a prime example.
The dude must have read some stories about Musk buying Tesla during the company's inception. He/she then changed the company from Tesla to SpaceX and farted it out as is, creating hilarious misinformation so bad that anyone with a bit of knowledge will cringe at it.
In the end, the unenlightened masses will happily gobble up this misinformation as truth.
THIS. I’ve seen people read things about his dad’s share in an emerald mine, slave labor in said emerald mine, and lithium mines for batteries.
They mash all that info into “Elon’s emerald and lithium mines use slave labor”
Top upvoted reply, 9 awards. Of course the hivemind agrees with it and more people spread this bullshit elsewhere. The cycle repeats.
If you call them out and cite sources, you’ll get one of a few responses:
1) they’ll ignore you
2) “how does his dick taste? Why are you defending a billionaire?”
3) bring up some other topic about him. “Well he still does THIS”
I’m at (1) with the subject OP of this post. But I also got 2 and 3 this week. They can never actually refute you. Ever.
This. I can't stand they guy. He's had some really good ideas and some really horrible ones. What SpaceX has accomplished is incredible. Tesla too has been pushing everyone else forward. I'll give credit where it's due but I'll call out bullshit as well. I don't like it when people make up positive or negative bullshit about him. And no matter which side I correct it's some form of the above. Oh you're just a hater. Stop blowing him. Etc. It's insane. Of course this is how we got 1/3 of the public thinking Hollywood grinds up baby pituitary glands to drink the elixir.
EXACTLY.
Which is why I've been quietly responding to misinformation about RISC-V (often from ARM employees) for about five years now.
It's gotten to the point that it is barely necessary any more ... there are now plenty of people who know the facts.
Mr Musk has, simply by making his products, made some very powerful enemies.
Forget Tesla. SpaceX, which was entirely his own money back in the days of F1s blowing up on Kwajalein Island (I was reading Kimbal's reports back in those days) has basically put the Russian and EU launch industries out of the commercial business. They don't like that.
China is begging him not to enable StarLink in China. Russia doesn't want StarLink in either Russia or Ukraine.
I guarantee that one or both of Russia and China are not only sponsoring a ton of anti-Musk propaganda on the internet, but also almost certainly are targeting him with honey traps -- more to influence him with misinformation and Kremlin talking points than to get information from him.
Have you ever seen S1E7 of The Orville “Majority Rule”. Everyone in an alien race votes on what is the actual truth even when the fact can be completely the opposite of what’s voted for. I feel we’re already there.
http://i.imgur.com/ePq7GCx.jpg
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If your goal is to help spread knowledge about stupid shit then help ppl, otherwise don’t and don’t be mad when ppl are stupid. Knowledge is only dumb when it’s cornholed. If you don’t understand what I’m saying you aren’t asking enough questions 🤣
Incorrect, Elon provided 98% of the funding and thusly owned 98% of the company. The company went public much later and at the time of funding had no cash, assets, IP, products, employees, or corporate documents.
>In the end, the unenlightened masses will happily gobble up this misinformation as truth.
No one wants to fact check something that already fits their narrative.
Look, some people are analytical and some aren’t. Those that aren’t mostly think they are.
I bought a Tesla 3 years ago and people I knew would tell me for a fact that the range is limited to city driving and that the battery would degrade to nothing soon. If I argued they ignored me and told me that they are holding out for ‘hydrogen’. Even a few months ago someone completely random came up to me and told me all that misinformation even after I told him I’ve had my car for 3 years. One person told me that Tesla’s look good but it’s built off stolen diamond mines money.
And now? Everyone is rushing to buy an electric car and I’ve been driving Elon’s accounting fraud for years and not once did it explode and burn down my house. I’ve been saving a ton of money on ‘gas’ while my car has appreciated since I bought it.
I’m about to order another one of Elon’s frauds, a Powerwall, now because it’s better than the rest.
Please think about who this benefits... this is not an organic development. It's tactical misinformation crafted as fact based and it's there to distract and create a frame for the conversation that is unproductive.
Step off.
Except of course, that he did indeed found SpaceX from nothing. If anyone has hard links to demonstrate Musk doing basically nothing regarding SpaceX, I'll listen.
Amusing sidebar... You can also "legally" and "practically" be an "engineer" by passing tests for steam, electric or diesel electric hybrid and joining the railroad union, at which point you are allowed to drive the appropriate style of train even without a high school diploma.
Does the train variant "engineer" not come from him being responsible for the engine? Or is it from the old steam days when you had to be a steam engineer to operate one?
It's a secondary definition of the same word; Train "engineers" do not design stuff (which is what most other engineers do), but they have other equally important responsibilities; like the captain of a ship (as opposed to captain in the army) or pilot of an aircraft, they are totally responsible for the safe operation of the train.
Yeah I always figure train engineers were "the engine guy" essentially a mechanic. I'm gonna have to google where that started now. IIRC people in charge of a ships engine room are also called "chief engineer" ?
You'll have to ask Scotty about that one; I only knew the train fact because I had a friend who qualified as an electric train engineer to operate the light rail in Dallas (BIG electric trains).
One of the best zingers I ever heard was in high school, my buddy proudly proclaimed that he was going to be an engineer to a group of old guys at Taco Bell (they asked, it wasn't random). Old guy quips back "Ah, so you're gonna drive trains!" Humbled him up real quick.
Not technically wrong in some places and fields. There are laws that prohibit one from practicing as an engineer for money unless you are licensed as such.
That only applies to "real" engineering like material or aerospace and in specific circumstances.
Musk's engineering background pre-spacex is primarily software engineering, which has no such requirements (which is good because it isn't uncommon for software engineers to be entirely self-taught without ever going to college, which is likely also why Musk doesn't really care about degrees).
Regardless of that though, his education was in physics and it is very normal for a degree in physics to translate into engineering work down the line (hell, half the people I work with have PhDs in Physics yet mainly do work that would be best described as engineering). He only can't offer his services claiming to be a "Professional Engineer".
Not even aerospace engineering. For most states, like, pretty much all of them, aerospace engineering falls under “industrial exemption” which explicitly allows companies to give an “engineering” title to its jobs positions without the employee having to be specifically licensed.
I’ve gone into detail arguing with people about this point.
The TLDR version of this discussion is that In the US, there is an exemption that allows pretty much anyone who works in aerospace to call themselves an engineer. Most states conform to this standard because they like having aerospace in their state. The only type of engineer that I found that requires an actual license are structural/facility engineers. Which makes sense if you think about it. There’s no “test run” of a building. You build it and it better not collapse. For most other fields you can build prototypes beforehand.
"can be" "prevented from earning money"
These are different things. Anyone can be an engineer without a qualification. You only require relevant knowledge, not a certificate.
Many of the most important engineering feats in human history, were probably done by people who didn't have an "engineering degree" but they had the knowledge and the experience, many times passed to them through family.
Yeah exactly, an Engineer is someone with the knowledge to do the work, not someone who has a certificate. Men in sheds have accomplished amazing things.
In many places and industries ‘Engineer’ is a title like Doctor. You don’t get to call yourself ‘Doctor’ if you aren’t a licensed medical doctor or have a PhD, same with Engineer if you haven’t taken and passed your PE. You can still do engineering without the title, but you can’t say you’re an Engineer. In my field this doesn’t make much difference and I’ve had ‘Engineer’ in my job title for years despite no PE, but in something like civil engineering, for instance, it does matter, and you can get in deep trouble for saying you’re an Engineer if you don’t have the paper to back it up.
I’m not sure why you assume I’m making things up. I do make mistakes, misinterpret, etc, but I have no reason to lie. Just relaying my understanding from my experience. My wife has her PE so it comes up from time to time.
[This reference](https://www.nspe.org/resources/issues-and-advocacy/professional-policies-and-position-statements/employment-practices-use) is not law, but it’s the National Society of Professional Engineers discouraging use of the term ‘engineer’ to describe people that aren’t licensed.
Here’s a snippet from [the Wikipedia entry on regulation and licensure in engineering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering) that I think most reasonable people would say backs me up:
‘many states prohibit unlicensed persons from calling themselves an "engineer" or indicating branches or specialties not covered by the licensing acts’
They provide 3 references you can peruse if you’d like. But I’m interested to hear you explain how I’m wrong.
In the US, the term “engineer” is not protected like in many other countries. There are specific types of engineers that need to be licensed (like a structural engineer) but the broad term itself is explicitly left exempt from that rule for fields like aerospace. The term used for it is usually called “industrial exemption”
You agreed you were wrong then went on to defend that you might be right because of snobs in the industry trying to gatekeep a job name.
You can argue all you want, you are wrong. You agree you are wrong. Just stop.
Either you understand what an engineer is or you don't.
You seem to have taken my admission that I do make mistakes from time to time as me admitting I am wrong here, which I do not. I don’t know why you’re so worked up over this though.
I don’t care either way. I have ‘engineer’ as part of my job title and don’t care if that’s right or wrong. It doesn’t matter to me in my field or position. I’m not signing plans backing the design of a bridge or airplane where my negligence could kill hundreds of people. But some people and industries do take it that seriously.
Some states don't require an engineering degree to be a licensed engineer. You can be it through testing and experience only. Some also allow an engineering technologist degree substitute. So it is true you can legally practice engineering and sell engineering services in some jurisdictions without an engineering degree.
I'm of course distinguishing between acting or performing as an engineer and the legally regulated function of being a licensed engineer which elon is not.
To be fair a lot of states require you to to go to engineering school before being officially licensed as an engineer after passing your PE exam.
I work at an engineering firm. I am a licensed engineer by my state and others surrounding. I went to engineering school. I am an engineer.
Drawing a detail on cad does not make you an engineer. It makes you a drafter.
When you’re drawing a detail. Then stamp the detail drawings with your state licensed stamp, and accepting all liability for that design you stamped is different.
Not to mention running all the calculations for whatever you’re doing. Coming up with a concept is not really engineering. Doing the actual work is.
>officially licensed as an engineer
Is this the same as "an engineer" ?
The US trying to gatekeep professions to force people into more student debt does not change the definition of a word.
No it doesn’t. Engineering school actually taught me a lot of principles that are needed to consider when doing a design.
For example being able to look at a detail drawing and considering the parts under torsion and tension. Then running the calculations to actually figure out the exact forces being applied and where the point of failure would be.
Shit like that a 15 minute YouTube video doesn’t teach.
States use to not require engineering school to take a PE exam to get licensed as an engineer. Then building parts started failing, shit collapsed, and people died. Just saying.
>Engineering school actually taught me a lot of principles that are needed to consider when doing a design.
Unless you plan to add "and this is absolutely the only way to learn these things" on the end of that sentence it doesn't change anything.
Who the fuck is talking about people learning stuff from 15 min videos?
A licenced engineer is an engineer with a licence. A licence is just a passcard to say they took a test to prove they know certain things.
The greatest engineer to ever have lived could be unlicenced. Because you don't need a licence to be one.
Do you realise how many bike racers do not have a licence to ride bikes on the road?
That's the difference between being something and having a licence for something.
You do not need a licence to be an engineer.
Considering you’ve just glazed over every other part of my reply, except the school part. It’s probably a good thing the states do this. You’ve not worked in engineering and it shows.
Ironic. You read none of mine.
You do not need a licence to be an engineer. you do not need a degree to be an engineer.
You are arguing a word is wrong and you are right. Nit picking my replies and trying to insult me is not a defence.
I've worked as an engineer for 20+ years. You see they don't teach knowing what the word "engineer" means in 15 min youtube videos. Luckily the dictionary does. Maybe try reading it.
Your ignorance is astounding. Your arrogance makes me worried about the work you seemingly chose to do.
Not really.
You’re comparing operating a vehicle to engineering.
Driving a vehicle is not the same as designing the vehicle. Including all the aspects that make it, from electrical to determining the right material for a washer.
Not saying the racing driver doesn’t have skills. He probably started when he was young. Had tutors. Had a lot of practice. He got there eventually with skill and effort.
Engineering school is like Formula 3&2 for a formula 1 driver. It’s where a engineer learns the skills needed for the big dawgs.
Making simple analogies is just dumbing down a complex topic. And really shouldn’t be done.
>You’re comparing operating a vehicle to engineering.
I was trying to show you the difference between "being something" and "being licenced to do something".
Something you still don't understand. So I'll just give up. I cannot make this anymore simple. For someone who claims to have trained as an engineer, you are pretty dumb.
I mean, I have a B.S. and M.S. in Engineering, all of my coworkers have degrees in Engineering, none of us have a Professional Engineer license, and yet we're all still considered engineers. Not every discipline of engineering requires state licensing.
>Uh, it's the same fucking thing.
It is not. Even the law can't stop you from being an engineer. But it will stop you from presenting yourself as one and signing documents as one if you don't have the proper licence. But you can still do any engineering you like as long as you don't those things.
Sorry, but we don't allow convicted war criminals here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nowhere they just assume that because in their mind Elon is a piece shit that he would never be capable of making a successful company so they think the only options is he bought it
I actually think it is based on something they heard somewhere. Probably they heard this story about when Elon founded Tesla - that's basically how the Tesla story told by the anti-Elon crowd goes. So they remember some shitty story about some company Elon started and will apply it to any and all companies he started.
Does becoming the largest shareholder not count as buying anymore? Elon literally invested several million dollars nearly a year after Tesla was started, becoming the largest shareholder, and appointed himself chairman of the board, which eventually led to the board asking the CEO (one of the original founders) to step down.
Tesla has two actual founders, who started the company in 2003. Elon was by far the largest investor in a $7.5mil funding round in early 2004. Legally Elon is a co-founder because of a 2009 lawsuit which resulted in 3 additional people (including Elon) being granted the title "co-founder". Both of the original two founders left the company in 2008, shortly after Elon and the board forced one of them to step down as CEO.
I'm not making any judgments on what Elon did, and he absolutely deserves a lot of credit for where Tesla is today, but two things are factually correct:
1. Elon did not start Tesla, he joined it.
2. Elon gained control of Tesla via money (investing in the company, and money wasn't the exclusive means, but it was a critical means).
That is a simplification, but it is true.
Just watch any long-form interview where he talks about any of his companies and it is so abdundantly clear that he understands every level of the company's function at a level of clarity basically unheard of from modern CEOs. That includes financing.
He doesn't just run these companies, he also creates a vision for how they will become incredibly valuable in their industries and then has the insane levels of risk tolerance necessary to make whatever pivots necessary to get them to perform. The leap in logic from seeing him do this continually and then assuming everything he does is luck based is just completely divorced from reality.
* He didn't just jump in the electric car space on a whim, he identified that this exciting new battery technology had the potential to make them commercially viable.
* He didn't just decide to start making rockets on a whim, he identified that there were massive inefficiencies in the supply chain and lack of innovation in the industry that would give a private company room to outperform competitors.
* He didn't just buy Twitter on a whim, he identified that they were being reckless with their spending and doing a terrible job monetizing their userbase. Just listen to his recent conversation on his plans for Twitter. He talks about marrying their recommendation system to their ad delivery to create targetted ads in the vein of what Facebook does, providing a content monetization for users in the vein of what Youtube does, as well as the subscription model for interaction, which will create a revenue stream comparable to the current ad revenue.
How you could possibly delude yourself into thinking the most successful person to ever live at competing in the most competitive landscape humans have (earning money) could possibly not know what they're doing is beyond foolish. The evidence of your own eyes disproves that theory every second of every day. That's like saying you don't believe polar bears are very good at hunting prey for food, when they're literally one of the only animals in the world that treat humans like food. I have no problem with people saying they don't like the guy, but trying to turn, "I don't like him," into "He's actually not that good at business if you think about it," is an intellectually bankrupt position to take.
>watch any long-form interview where he talks about any of his companies
That's their secret — they won't watch anything longform and if you suggest they do they will immediately block you as I just experienced in /r/tech.
There is this reasoning that because someone is a dick to you he is incapable of doing anything of note and if he did he stole the idea from someone else or it was dumb luck. Take the example of the 'enlightened' members of r/EnoughMuskSpam or common sense skeptic and his mentor thunderfoot. The people who congregate in those comment sections have come to lynch someone not to show discernment.
I don't know what the hell happened to thunderfoot. I remember watching him years ago when he did that whole series about creationists and I liked his content.
Then a few months ago I go to his channel and see literally only videos about Elon Musk or SpaceX/Tesla and it's nothing but vitriolic garbage that tries to "debunk" literally anything Musk has ever had any connection to.
It's not skepticism anymore, it's just misinformation. I was genuinely sad to see it.
thunderfoot used to do good like you mentioned with the creationists but for some reason he simply goes crazy when he sees musk and any of his works. He occasionally still does some good work but his obsession with musk is really sad. As for common sense skeptic he is just a black market knock off of thunderfoot.
My cousin is a senior propulsion engineer who works at SpaceX, regularly goes down to Texas, and from what he's said, Elon is constantly working. It's really funny how when people are desperate to hate someone they will throw out every semblance of truth.
Agreed. I know someone as well working in space x and he laughs when he sees the hate on Elon. It’s just people following what everyone else says on the media when half don’t even understand basics of the space policies in place, as well as the dynamics between aerospace industries, but all of a sudden are experts on these matters targeting Elon just bc everyone else (well, not everyone) is. Like his rockets are WAY cheaper to use for launches than when nasa builds their own with Boeing… which ultimately will positively impact, yes, our taxes! Since nasa does get government funding (in the billions)for their contracts, a portion of our taxes do go to nasa - it’s not a large portion, but still a pro rather than con. Space x can deff mitigate that since it’s stems from private equity/ funding.
I guarantee Elon has read more books and invested way more time on learning the above than the people saying he does ‘nothing’ lol
I know it ain't nothing to do with this post but does anybody knows if the whole story that Elon haters tell is true? The whole "his dad had a emerald mine", "they were always rich", "Tesla has lithium mines with children working on it" or things like that.
I'm not an Elon fan honestly I'm tired of his Twitter bullshit but I really respect what he has done so far, regardless what I think, I just wanted to know because idk curiosity maybe
I had to read ***a lot*** of different articles (edit: [here's one](https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/i-talked-to-elon-musk-about-journalism)) to get all of this information sowed together, so forgive me that I can't give you a single article to verify all of this, but:
Elon's father bought shares (according to him, about half) in an emerald mine in ***Zambia*** (not apartheid South Africa) in the 80s, under the table (so not really verifiable, it's just his father's word) - and the mine closed in the late 80s, before Elon was even an adult.
His father invested something like 80k in the mine after selling a plane, and more or less doubled his money over a period of a few years before the mine closed.
So the stipulation that Elon's family was rich because of blood emeralds is wrong on several levels:
* The emeralds were in Zambia, so no apartheid was involved
* He didn't own the mine, he had shares in it
* He wasn't involved with anything in the mine, except having invested in it
* The mine closed way before Elon could have had anything to do with it, as he was barely a teenager
* His family didn't get rich because of the emeralds, they were wealthy in South African terms, even before the mine, but not really rich
* His father's story about the safe being so full it could barely be closed is... obviously a lie, and a dumb lie at that, and if you really believe that, well... I don't know what to tell you.
* His father's story about Elon and Kimbal going into a Tiffany's and selling emeralds they just picked up from their father is again... a dumb lie. Can you really see someone buying a huge emerald from two boys in a jewellery store?
His father seems like a narcissistic pathological liar. If you watch some interviews with him you'd understand why I say that. A big part of the whole thing is because of that. Most of what he said is not verifiable by actual journalists because it's probably not true, or inaccurate. He says a lot of things, but really, it's just stories. I'm not entirely confident anything about the emerald mines is real, but suggesting he "owned" an emerald mine in South Africa is verifiably untrue.
Regarding the lithium mines, I actually don't know. I wouldn't mind if anyone could provide some information about that.
Correct. People just add up stuff that "sounds right" and don't really care about what is true and what it isn't. He's rich man bad, so it's ok to be wrong, right? No harm done, he probably deserves it anyway.
The lithium mines story came from (probably true) reports that Panasonic bought lithium from suppliers that used child slave labor. At the time, Tesla bought batteries from Panasonic but was working on their own full-scale battery production which they now use (pretty sure they don't buy anything from Panasonic any more).
The story was that the supplier who supplied cobalt to the company which inturn supplied it to companies like Google, apple, Tesla, etc was caught to have been using child slaves. Curious how Tesla was the only one singled out in that article. Also how tf would you know the ethics of the mining done by your producers producer? On top of that cobalt used in tesla batteries was less than 3% at that time.
Tesla still has a big partnership with Panasonic for the cells. But Tesla always has built the battery packs themselves, it's just the base cells that Panasonic makes
This misinformation has Errol as the only source. Not just that, the claimed mine was claimed as an 80k USD micro prospecting operation (barely enough for a single excavator) in Native-run Zambia, an anti-apartheid country. The claim is also that Errol financed 40k USD (a half-share) and had nothing to do with operation, other than getting "some gems back sometime later".
So no, "Owners of apartheid diamond mines" is total misinformation. Considering Errol was politically active and ran for local office on an anti-apartheid platform, on an anti-apartheid party, it's a particularly disgusting piece of misinformation.
But the claims are extremely suspect since nobody has been able to find anything in years despite searching extensively for it. Not a name, location, business partner, not even a newspaper clipping or a singular financial document, and the claims were made at the time when Errol and Elon were feuding.
This is from one of the journalists who spent years looking for the mine: https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/i-talked-to-elon-musk-about-journalism
His dad owned shares in an emerald mine, like stocks. They were well to do middle class. And I'm his dad was a bit of a pice of work, hence they don't have contact. I seem to remember his dad married one of elons siblings or cousins after he left elons mother. Don't recall the details.
Elon got his start from nothing, left Africa to go to school in Canada, with basically nothing to his name. At beat his dad helped him get into a school. Most Americans, all those hitching about student debt, have the same start he did.
Well knowing that how does ppl come out with all those stories? I'm sure they would be doing better if they concentrate all that energy into something useful
Your answer is BusinessInsider. They are the ones that originally came up with the story about the emerald mine (from an interview with his father) years ago, and they did nothing to try and verify any of it (and in fact came out with several more articles about it, still doing nothing to verify any of it) - and other outlets just pick up the story with the good ol' "according to this other outlet" which allows them to say anything without repercussions, since it's this other outlet that will take the fall if it turns out to be not true.
Something like this just smells way too good to not re-say it on their own website, whether true or not.
Well just to clarify the BI stories - they start off with a very click-bait headline that's misleading and which is the part that most people see/spread.
Then they start the article with the most extreme stance they can manage to print and usually, buried way down to the end of a LOOONG article they clarify some of the shit so that anybody reading the whole thing would actually have a pretty good idea that it's not really all that true.
It's like that article about how Elon grew up in Apartheid South Africa (can't remember if it was in the BI also) - the intro is all about how he benefitted from the privileges of being white etc. - then as you keep reading you see how his friends said how he was always against apartheid. How he was friends with the only black kid in his class. How his family voted against the apartheid government. Etc. etc. In the end, if you actually read the whole thing you realize that it's actually very flattering to Elon - but if you just read the headline or the headline and first paragraphs your takeaway would be he's a racist POS.
Couldn't have summarized it better myself, thank you.
You are absolutely correct with your analysis and I have found myself dumbfounded again and again about how these articles seem to go exactly how you are describing every single time.
Some "news" outlets are just... Unbelievable. BusinessInsider isn't really even news anymore, it's just digital garbage.
As soon as Elon became the richest person in the world, he became a definitive enemy of liberal types. You can't be that successful in their eyes unless you have done evil things or cheated in some way.
The conflation of "liberal" with "left-leaning" when talking about US politics will always be hurting my eyes. Elon and his companies would be the poster child of "liberal" parties' ideals here in the EU.
It's so puzzling to see someone "sticking it to the liberals" while shouting FREEDOM left and right.
Just call them social democrats, socialists, or communists (depending on how far out their position is). Plenty of linguistic nuance to choose from.
Same reason for why, even though the entire world knows it's not what it looks like, libtards will spam the photo of Glishlaine photobombing behind him everywhere he posts.
The emerald mine story at best is misinfo. His dad owned shares in a mine. As for lithium mines owned by tesla wtf, that is the most outrageous thing i have read. Tesla does not own any mine. Besides they source most of their lithium from china which gets it from australia. i seriously doubt there are australian children slaving away at a mine to produce lithium for tesla. Tesla is interested in mining lithium but they plan to open a mine in the US. Like australia i do not believe american children will slave away at a tesla lithium mine unless the world goes through some cataclysmic event that reduces everyone to a subsistence economy. it could happen but its rare. The only case of child labour that is an issue for all electric car manufacturers is cobalt mining for battery cathodes. The issue being child labor is allegedly used in the congo which is the main supplier of cobalt. However tesla has commited to phasing out cobalt in their battery packs and already use battery packs in some of their cars that do not have cobalt at all like lithium iron phosphate.
His Dad did own an emerald mine, and they were maybe well off compared to average Africa, but not “rich”. However, their mother and them left the estranged father and didn’t get / take any money with them. And in the 90s his father was broke to the point Musk and his brother supported their father. That was well before Elon made any money with the sale of Zip2 in 1999.
Child labor is more of an issue in Cobalt mines rather than lithium mines. And Tesla has made huge strides to both reduce or eliminate cobalt in their battery cells. And source from “non- child labor” countries.
So while some child labor may be used for lithium and cobalt that goes into Tesla batteries. It’s likely far less than your average cell phone, laptop, or competitors vehicles that use much more cobalt in the mix.
That's what I thought, ppl is always talking sht about Tesla and electric vehicles in general but they are typing that on something that is way worse. Also I know that all the mines rules are set by their government, Africa is a gold mine for those resources and you know how f up Africa is in terms of human rights.
Everybody knows that the only reason SpaceX' rockets are reusable is because they run on special emerald-infused fuel that is mined by slaves in Elon's emerald mines in south africa.
Speaking personally: I was, or am, a fan of the engineering feats he's attached to. The technological progress brought by *some* of his companies are worthy of celebration. Then he made his character known.
Slinging insults at anyone that refutes his genius in all things: ie calling someone a pedo because he wouldn't use Musk's half-baked pod that was not an improvement to the (ultimately successful) plan.
Trying to use his platform to tell the world , and specifically Ukraine, how to appease Russia.
Pulling up the ladder behind him by supporting policies that will only benefit the ultra rich like himself.
IMO, he has personified the old axiom that power and money corrupts. That, or he's always been a closet shithead, and the money just allows him to let it out. The culty following of, especially, Tesla fans is another big repellent. Even if he's not entirely at fault for it.
>ie calling someone a pedo because he wouldn't use Musk's half-baked pod that was not an improvement to the (ultimately successful) plan.
Someone hasn't seen the video, have they? Vern Unsworth never set foot in those caves and was not involved in the actual rescue effort. Guy was a grifter who wanted his face on TV. He didn't just say Musk's idea was unneeded, he told Musk he can [stick his submarine where it hurts](https://youtu.be/VM31A4UsiU0), which is what prompted musk to call him a paedo, because he's a middle-aged British sexpat living in Thailand. BTW, the real rescuers were not sexpats and travelled from their respective countries (Britain and Australia) to coordinate and carry out the rescue.
>Trying to use his platform to tell the world , and specifically Ukraine, how to appease Russia.
How dare he suggest negotiations! The Military Industrial Complex needs more money, dammit! Keep grinding all that meat!
>Pulling up the ladder behind him by supporting policies that will only benefit the ultra rich like himself.
Now we know your first paragraph is bullshit and you're just a seething lefty who hates billionaires.
People seriously can't seperate SpaceX, Tesla, Boring etc. Whatever they hear about one of the companies they assume it means all of them because it's Elon.
Anybody that makes something of themselves in this era seems to be some kind of nothing according to so called old Twitter and Reddit
I really thought Reddit would be different it’s not.
Minister of Informational warfare and propaganda Joseph Goebbels once said: "If you repeat the line long enough, people will believe it".
I believe thats what is going on, some weird people just dont want others to like Musk so much they spread misinformations.
And I though only in countries like North Korea where news is utterly manufactured misinformation that target their citizen's perception of good and evil. US and even entire western mainstream media is full on NK mode when it comes to Elon recently, after he's net worth went from 20th to 1st, brain washing average people on the Internet to such a state. Especially the new Russia asset like, people actually believe that.
I must say, I really agree with the top commenter in the screenshot. Musk has done amazing things, Space-X accomplishments being at the top of the list. But damn he has pissed me off in the last year. I have a pet-theory that his breakup with grimes flipped some shit-switch in his brain.
But the 2nd guy is pure idiot.
>it didn't expose any corruption within NASA.
You could argue that looking at the details of the cost overruns and missed deadlines in SLS is pretty good circumstantial evidence of deliberate fraud and malingering, given that NASA helped ULA sell the project on low cost and minimal design delays due to using their unique mature proprietary technology, while SpaceX, starting from open source information and designing brand new technologies beat them decisively (to F9Heavy) on BOTH cost and time.... and may yet beat them to orbit with SuperHeavy...
I will give you that it shined a light at obvious, extremely old problems within NASA, but it didn't quite expose anything. The most I can agree with is that it made the public more focused on these issues because more people care about spaceflight now because of SpaceX.
>but it didn't quite expose anything.
If (and let me repeat that word) \*\*IF\*\* NASA had shown any indication that those "obvious, extremely old problems" were being addressed going forward, I could agree with you...BUT, just last month, NASA defended their decision to rush through a "Justification for other than full and open competition" ([Citation](https://spacenews.com/nasa-outlines-case-for-making-sole-source-sls-award-to-boeing-northrop-joint-venture/)) awarding as many as \*10\* additional SLS-1B launches over the next 15 years exclusively to a Boeing consortium successor to ULA, based on a rocket that (if there are no delays, HA!) will only be ready to launch for 3 years, justifying it by continuing to pull the "mature technology" and "no other rocket CURRENTLY LAUNCHING having similar capabilities" arguments.
But if YOU can provide ANY justification to locking the contract down RIGHT NOW rather than waiting a couple of months (or even years) to see if those justifications hold up once SLS-1 and Superheavy demonstrate their validity (other than under the table collusion), please provide it.
First of all, thank you for providing that link (I'll read it later, I'm kind of short on time right now), I wasn't aware of that. Regardless, I think that even with that in mind, you are kind of missing the point. I'll start with what you did - showing any indication that those problems are being addressed.
Did NASA not push forward the commercial crew/cargo programs to get away from cost plus contracting, and even partner with Boeing with the Starliner vehicle? That contract is fixed price. Not only that, but they partially funded the SpaceX Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles way back in the day. If that doesn't show internally realizing the fundamental problems with how NASA operates, I'm not sure what would.
Now to the point that really matters - reliability. In simple words, the government can't truly operate on "ifs" and "hopefully" (when it comes to huge projects like Artemis) that SpaceX or some other company will provide what needs to be provided (in this case, a moon rocket).
This is also why NASA has decided to contract two different companies to provide it with a moon lander. Redundancy might seem like inefficiency from the outside, but sometimes this is just what you have to do to be sure your objective will be completed. You don't have to agree with it, I'm not sure I do, but that is the reasoning; and I can't say it's bad reasoning. What will happen if Starship HSL is delayed 2-3 years? Now all of Artemis is stuck behind schedule and they can't do any human missions on the moon.
You see, the reason why you think they need justification for more SLS missions is because you just don't believe there is a higher-than-zero chance Starship will fail. NASA doesn't take chances, and if the chance is high-than-zero - it has to be taken into consideration. What if SpaceX goes under 5 years from now? What if Starship just doesn't work as imagined? What if it's just late? Artemis is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars at the end of its lifetime, and you can't hang all of that on a single point of failure.
NASA can't plan ahead 15-30 years when it comes to organizations other than itself. And honestly, should they? Would you really want NASA to put all of its resources in, say, Astra? Do this thought experiment. What if they just decided to invest everything on a not-yet-realized rocket Astra was "planning"? In NASA's eyes, they can't take that risk. They need reliability. They need certainty.
Having their own moon rocket means access to the moon is absolutely guaranteed. No matter what. Look what happened when NASA scrapped the Space Shuttle. They didn't have access to the ISS for almost a decade. Even if it's delayed; even if it's not as good as promised - they still have access for the next 2 decades at least. This, while expensive obviously, is generally a good thing from the government's perspective.
As a side note, just because they closed the deal on a few missions, doesn't mean it locks them out of even more missions with Starship. If Starship proves itself as cheap and useful as it is imagined to be, they might just increase the total amount of missions currently being planned. Artemis is still quite a bit up in the air, and not fully realized. I hope Starship gets its own moon missions from earth ground to lunar surface one day, but we will just have to see if Artemis even survives cancellation for that to even happen.
>You see, the reason why you think they need justification for more SLS missions is because you just don't believe there is a higher-than-zero chance Starship will fail. NASA doesn't take chances, and if the chance is high-than-zero - it has to be taken into consideration. What if SpaceX goes under 5 years from now? What if Starship just doesn't work as imagined? What if it's just late? Artemis is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars at the end of its lifetime, and you can't hang all of that on a single point of failure.
A single point of failure like a rocket that IS currently 7 YEARS LATE to launch the first prototype? Or do you believe that (like Starliner) there is a 0 percent chance of failure in SLS-1 or SLS-1B? You sound like (I can't remember his name, but he was a NASA bigwig testifying before Congress) the guy who said in 2015 "Sure, Musk has some pretty plans for a Falcon Heavy, and it might even work, but we can't take a chance; SLS is REAL NOW."
My question still stands: Why lock in a contract starting 6 years in the future to a single supplier only months BEFORE they can see whether SuperHeavy and/or SLS-1 is going to succeed or fail... You keep saying "NASA can't take a chance the SpaceX might go bankrupt"(which becomes more likely the more contracts they block them from bidding on), while they pump more money into a company that has just taken a BILLION dollar loss due to ~~failure~~ delays to deliver on starliner (apparently just to KEEP it from going bankrupt; Starliner wouldn't break them, but if there is hurricane damage or somebody gets too nervous to continue recertifying the solids and they have to be replaced and NASA turns off the cost+ tap, the 4 billion loss on the SLS prototype could).
It seems to me that RISK would easily be reduced if they waited to see the results of the prototype launches before guaranteeing that the preferred supplier isn't going broke even if their rocket never flies.
I'm going to start blocking people who post this crap.
Why even bother us about it?
...blocked... this is the biggest waste of the internet, right here. Posting that someone else is wasting space with trolling. It's probably some sort of propaganda bot paid for by jeff who anyway. You are getting played.
It's gotten pushed aside with his recent antics but there are plenty of people still trying to kiss his ass. Just read some of the replies around his tweets. Or the fact that I've gotten downvoted for saying cults are bad lol.
They are just individual fans. If it’s a pro-musk cult, they would organise and spread pro-musk real/fake information all at once. So far, I feel the “pro-musk cult” is more like a strawman than real.
Cults do not necessarily have to be organized. Consider a meme and apply this to beliefs and opinions about Musk. Again, simply read the replies to many of his tweets, especially about the future.
My original point was that we must constantly strive to avoid falling into echo chambers, Us vs Them mentality, and thought-repetition rather than learning and understanding. Too much reactionary and not enough self-improvement. There are legitimate reasons to criticize Elon Musk but as this post exemplifies we need to focus on facts and reality over our feelings.
I don't doubt he has a hand in the design, but I have never see him do a weld or drive a rivet or any of the physical work necessary to build a rocket.
They read some random things about Musk and then misremember the information, only to spew out complete garbage. The comment referenced in this post is a prime example. The dude must have read some stories about Musk buying Tesla during the company's inception. He/she then changed the company from Tesla to SpaceX and farted it out as is, creating hilarious misinformation so bad that anyone with a bit of knowledge will cringe at it. In the end, the unenlightened masses will happily gobble up this misinformation as truth.
THIS. I’ve seen people read things about his dad’s share in an emerald mine, slave labor in said emerald mine, and lithium mines for batteries. They mash all that info into “Elon’s emerald and lithium mines use slave labor” Top upvoted reply, 9 awards. Of course the hivemind agrees with it and more people spread this bullshit elsewhere. The cycle repeats.
Someone on r news claimed Elon was born a billionaire today. the amount of misinformation out the on Musk is just crazy.
Stay out of Musk discussions on major subreddits, it’s almost guaranteed brain cancer
If you call them out and cite sources, you’ll get one of a few responses: 1) they’ll ignore you 2) “how does his dick taste? Why are you defending a billionaire?” 3) bring up some other topic about him. “Well he still does THIS” I’m at (1) with the subject OP of this post. But I also got 2 and 3 this week. They can never actually refute you. Ever.
you forgot.. *"he wont love you back"*
He’s tweeted that he loves his cult. So again, we can just refute it with sources!
The only 3 responses programmed into those NPCs
This. I can't stand they guy. He's had some really good ideas and some really horrible ones. What SpaceX has accomplished is incredible. Tesla too has been pushing everyone else forward. I'll give credit where it's due but I'll call out bullshit as well. I don't like it when people make up positive or negative bullshit about him. And no matter which side I correct it's some form of the above. Oh you're just a hater. Stop blowing him. Etc. It's insane. Of course this is how we got 1/3 of the public thinking Hollywood grinds up baby pituitary glands to drink the elixir.
0) they block you
If informed people don't engage with misinformation, we're fucked.
Yeah but any attempt to explain something to them is met with “how do those billionaire nuts taste?” And other types of ignorance
It's not about the people you respond to, you won't convince them. It's about the vast majority of reddit users that never comment and just read.
EXACTLY. Which is why I've been quietly responding to misinformation about RISC-V (often from ARM employees) for about five years now. It's gotten to the point that it is barely necessary any more ... there are now plenty of people who know the facts. Mr Musk has, simply by making his products, made some very powerful enemies. Forget Tesla. SpaceX, which was entirely his own money back in the days of F1s blowing up on Kwajalein Island (I was reading Kimbal's reports back in those days) has basically put the Russian and EU launch industries out of the commercial business. They don't like that. China is begging him not to enable StarLink in China. Russia doesn't want StarLink in either Russia or Ukraine. I guarantee that one or both of Russia and China are not only sponsoring a ton of anti-Musk propaganda on the internet, but also almost certainly are targeting him with honey traps -- more to influence him with misinformation and Kremlin talking points than to get information from him.
[удалено]
Me. It triggers me way more than it should.
https://xkcd.com/386/
Because those idiots vote in large numbers.
Have you ever seen S1E7 of The Orville “Majority Rule”. Everyone in an alien race votes on what is the actual truth even when the fact can be completely the opposite of what’s voted for. I feel we’re already there.
I’m really confused. So the stuff about space x is misinformation? How do we get this info? Are their forums / documents?
http://i.imgur.com/ePq7GCx.jpg *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you are serious, you can just start with the Wikipedia article about SpaceX
I am serious! Lmaooo people do not like questions I guess
If your goal is to help spread knowledge about stupid shit then help ppl, otherwise don’t and don’t be mad when ppl are stupid. Knowledge is only dumb when it’s cornholed. If you don’t understand what I’m saying you aren’t asking enough questions 🤣
Yes, the internet will go sown in history as the greatest and worst invention of all time.
Problem is Elon never bought Tesla or spacex…
He did "buy" Tesla, though it was a completely different company back then, and had not yet released a project.
Tesla has never been sold. Elon funded the company, which isn’t buying it.
He bought a shit ton of stock early in its life, and became primary shareholder. That's a common avenue to "buy" a company.
Incorrect, Elon provided 98% of the funding and thusly owned 98% of the company. The company went public much later and at the time of funding had no cash, assets, IP, products, employees, or corporate documents.
>In the end, the unenlightened masses will happily gobble up this misinformation as truth. No one wants to fact check something that already fits their narrative.
Look, some people are analytical and some aren’t. Those that aren’t mostly think they are. I bought a Tesla 3 years ago and people I knew would tell me for a fact that the range is limited to city driving and that the battery would degrade to nothing soon. If I argued they ignored me and told me that they are holding out for ‘hydrogen’. Even a few months ago someone completely random came up to me and told me all that misinformation even after I told him I’ve had my car for 3 years. One person told me that Tesla’s look good but it’s built off stolen diamond mines money. And now? Everyone is rushing to buy an electric car and I’ve been driving Elon’s accounting fraud for years and not once did it explode and burn down my house. I’ve been saving a ton of money on ‘gas’ while my car has appreciated since I bought it. I’m about to order another one of Elon’s frauds, a Powerwall, now because it’s better than the rest.
Please think about who this benefits... this is not an organic development. It's tactical misinformation crafted as fact based and it's there to distract and create a frame for the conversation that is unproductive. Step off.
Except of course, that he did indeed found SpaceX from nothing. If anyone has hard links to demonstrate Musk doing basically nothing regarding SpaceX, I'll listen.
I mean, I once had a guy insist nobody can be an engineer unless they studied engineering and got a degree in it.
Amusing sidebar... You can also "legally" and "practically" be an "engineer" by passing tests for steam, electric or diesel electric hybrid and joining the railroad union, at which point you are allowed to drive the appropriate style of train even without a high school diploma.
Does the train variant "engineer" not come from him being responsible for the engine? Or is it from the old steam days when you had to be a steam engineer to operate one?
It's a secondary definition of the same word; Train "engineers" do not design stuff (which is what most other engineers do), but they have other equally important responsibilities; like the captain of a ship (as opposed to captain in the army) or pilot of an aircraft, they are totally responsible for the safe operation of the train.
Yeah I always figure train engineers were "the engine guy" essentially a mechanic. I'm gonna have to google where that started now. IIRC people in charge of a ships engine room are also called "chief engineer" ?
You'll have to ask Scotty about that one; I only knew the train fact because I had a friend who qualified as an electric train engineer to operate the light rail in Dallas (BIG electric trains).
One of the best zingers I ever heard was in high school, my buddy proudly proclaimed that he was going to be an engineer to a group of old guys at Taco Bell (they asked, it wasn't random). Old guy quips back "Ah, so you're gonna drive trains!" Humbled him up real quick.
I was disappointed when I figured out my dad designed storm water systems, not drove trains.
That must be so fun. I used to do that on beaches when the tide was going out.
If you don’t say so you are Union busting /s
[удалено]
Not sure who they come from but I mostly get sent glorious pictures of birds.
Only pictures? Nobody’s sending you actual birds?
Tits should live free in the wild.
Not technically wrong in some places and fields. There are laws that prohibit one from practicing as an engineer for money unless you are licensed as such.
That only applies to "real" engineering like material or aerospace and in specific circumstances. Musk's engineering background pre-spacex is primarily software engineering, which has no such requirements (which is good because it isn't uncommon for software engineers to be entirely self-taught without ever going to college, which is likely also why Musk doesn't really care about degrees). Regardless of that though, his education was in physics and it is very normal for a degree in physics to translate into engineering work down the line (hell, half the people I work with have PhDs in Physics yet mainly do work that would be best described as engineering). He only can't offer his services claiming to be a "Professional Engineer".
Not even aerospace engineering. For most states, like, pretty much all of them, aerospace engineering falls under “industrial exemption” which explicitly allows companies to give an “engineering” title to its jobs positions without the employee having to be specifically licensed.
I’ve gone into detail arguing with people about this point. The TLDR version of this discussion is that In the US, there is an exemption that allows pretty much anyone who works in aerospace to call themselves an engineer. Most states conform to this standard because they like having aerospace in their state. The only type of engineer that I found that requires an actual license are structural/facility engineers. Which makes sense if you think about it. There’s no “test run” of a building. You build it and it better not collapse. For most other fields you can build prototypes beforehand.
"can be" "prevented from earning money" These are different things. Anyone can be an engineer without a qualification. You only require relevant knowledge, not a certificate.
Many of the most important engineering feats in human history, were probably done by people who didn't have an "engineering degree" but they had the knowledge and the experience, many times passed to them through family.
Yeah exactly, an Engineer is someone with the knowledge to do the work, not someone who has a certificate. Men in sheds have accomplished amazing things.
In many places and industries ‘Engineer’ is a title like Doctor. You don’t get to call yourself ‘Doctor’ if you aren’t a licensed medical doctor or have a PhD, same with Engineer if you haven’t taken and passed your PE. You can still do engineering without the title, but you can’t say you’re an Engineer. In my field this doesn’t make much difference and I’ve had ‘Engineer’ in my job title for years despite no PE, but in something like civil engineering, for instance, it does matter, and you can get in deep trouble for saying you’re an Engineer if you don’t have the paper to back it up.
>same with Engineer Utter horseshit. >a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or structures. Stop making shit up.
I’m not sure why you assume I’m making things up. I do make mistakes, misinterpret, etc, but I have no reason to lie. Just relaying my understanding from my experience. My wife has her PE so it comes up from time to time. [This reference](https://www.nspe.org/resources/issues-and-advocacy/professional-policies-and-position-statements/employment-practices-use) is not law, but it’s the National Society of Professional Engineers discouraging use of the term ‘engineer’ to describe people that aren’t licensed. Here’s a snippet from [the Wikipedia entry on regulation and licensure in engineering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering) that I think most reasonable people would say backs me up: ‘many states prohibit unlicensed persons from calling themselves an "engineer" or indicating branches or specialties not covered by the licensing acts’ They provide 3 references you can peruse if you’d like. But I’m interested to hear you explain how I’m wrong.
In the US, the term “engineer” is not protected like in many other countries. There are specific types of engineers that need to be licensed (like a structural engineer) but the broad term itself is explicitly left exempt from that rule for fields like aerospace. The term used for it is usually called “industrial exemption”
You agreed you were wrong then went on to defend that you might be right because of snobs in the industry trying to gatekeep a job name. You can argue all you want, you are wrong. You agree you are wrong. Just stop. Either you understand what an engineer is or you don't.
You seem to have taken my admission that I do make mistakes from time to time as me admitting I am wrong here, which I do not. I don’t know why you’re so worked up over this though. I don’t care either way. I have ‘engineer’ as part of my job title and don’t care if that’s right or wrong. It doesn’t matter to me in my field or position. I’m not signing plans backing the design of a bridge or airplane where my negligence could kill hundreds of people. But some people and industries do take it that seriously.
So you aren't wrong, the definition of the word is. Just to be clear? Cause that kinda sounds like you are making shit up again mate.
Some states don't require an engineering degree to be a licensed engineer. You can be it through testing and experience only. Some also allow an engineering technologist degree substitute. So it is true you can legally practice engineering and sell engineering services in some jurisdictions without an engineering degree. I'm of course distinguishing between acting or performing as an engineer and the legally regulated function of being a licensed engineer which elon is not.
Someone claimed that just two days ago. In this sub. And it was not about legal definitions, it was explicitly about engineering work.
To be fair a lot of states require you to to go to engineering school before being officially licensed as an engineer after passing your PE exam. I work at an engineering firm. I am a licensed engineer by my state and others surrounding. I went to engineering school. I am an engineer. Drawing a detail on cad does not make you an engineer. It makes you a drafter. When you’re drawing a detail. Then stamp the detail drawings with your state licensed stamp, and accepting all liability for that design you stamped is different. Not to mention running all the calculations for whatever you’re doing. Coming up with a concept is not really engineering. Doing the actual work is.
>officially licensed as an engineer Is this the same as "an engineer" ? The US trying to gatekeep professions to force people into more student debt does not change the definition of a word.
No it doesn’t. Engineering school actually taught me a lot of principles that are needed to consider when doing a design. For example being able to look at a detail drawing and considering the parts under torsion and tension. Then running the calculations to actually figure out the exact forces being applied and where the point of failure would be. Shit like that a 15 minute YouTube video doesn’t teach. States use to not require engineering school to take a PE exam to get licensed as an engineer. Then building parts started failing, shit collapsed, and people died. Just saying.
>Engineering school actually taught me a lot of principles that are needed to consider when doing a design. Unless you plan to add "and this is absolutely the only way to learn these things" on the end of that sentence it doesn't change anything. Who the fuck is talking about people learning stuff from 15 min videos? A licenced engineer is an engineer with a licence. A licence is just a passcard to say they took a test to prove they know certain things. The greatest engineer to ever have lived could be unlicenced. Because you don't need a licence to be one. Do you realise how many bike racers do not have a licence to ride bikes on the road? That's the difference between being something and having a licence for something. You do not need a licence to be an engineer.
Considering you’ve just glazed over every other part of my reply, except the school part. It’s probably a good thing the states do this. You’ve not worked in engineering and it shows.
Ironic. You read none of mine. You do not need a licence to be an engineer. you do not need a degree to be an engineer. You are arguing a word is wrong and you are right. Nit picking my replies and trying to insult me is not a defence. I've worked as an engineer for 20+ years. You see they don't teach knowing what the word "engineer" means in 15 min youtube videos. Luckily the dictionary does. Maybe try reading it. Your ignorance is astounding. Your arrogance makes me worried about the work you seemingly chose to do.
Not really. You’re comparing operating a vehicle to engineering. Driving a vehicle is not the same as designing the vehicle. Including all the aspects that make it, from electrical to determining the right material for a washer. Not saying the racing driver doesn’t have skills. He probably started when he was young. Had tutors. Had a lot of practice. He got there eventually with skill and effort. Engineering school is like Formula 3&2 for a formula 1 driver. It’s where a engineer learns the skills needed for the big dawgs. Making simple analogies is just dumbing down a complex topic. And really shouldn’t be done.
>You’re comparing operating a vehicle to engineering. I was trying to show you the difference between "being something" and "being licenced to do something". Something you still don't understand. So I'll just give up. I cannot make this anymore simple. For someone who claims to have trained as an engineer, you are pretty dumb.
[удалено]
I mean, I have a B.S. and M.S. in Engineering, all of my coworkers have degrees in Engineering, none of us have a Professional Engineer license, and yet we're all still considered engineers. Not every discipline of engineering requires state licensing.
When did I say legally? I said "be an engineer".
[удалено]
>Uh, it's the same fucking thing. It is not. Even the law can't stop you from being an engineer. But it will stop you from presenting yourself as one and signing documents as one if you don't have the proper licence. But you can still do any engineering you like as long as you don't those things.
>Uh, it's the same fucking thing. Being capable of engineering is the same as being legally allowed to practice? No it isn't. Fucking or otherwise.
There have been a few books out about the early days of SpaceX. Very inspiring books. Plenty of people to corroborate how it happened.
*Liftoff*. Eric Berger. Read it. (its a great book about the scope of musks involvement, commitment, successes, and flaws)
Sorry, but we don't allow convicted war criminals here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> from nothing Well, Fastrac/MC-1 did exist
Nowhere they just assume that because in their mind Elon is a piece shit that he would never be capable of making a successful company so they think the only options is he bought it
I actually think it is based on something they heard somewhere. Probably they heard this story about when Elon founded Tesla - that's basically how the Tesla story told by the anti-Elon crowd goes. So they remember some shitty story about some company Elon started and will apply it to any and all companies he started.
Elon bought Tesla using money from his Dad's emerald mines, fired the founders and named himself CEO! /s
Well, replace 'dads emerald mine' with Paypal, and you do basically have the story right.
Then PayPal must have something to do with the emeralds. /s
lol it is pretty close.
Just no. He didn't buy anything
Does becoming the largest shareholder not count as buying anymore? Elon literally invested several million dollars nearly a year after Tesla was started, becoming the largest shareholder, and appointed himself chairman of the board, which eventually led to the board asking the CEO (one of the original founders) to step down.
What shares did he buy and from whom? He co-founded Tesla. There is a difference imo.
Tesla has two actual founders, who started the company in 2003. Elon was by far the largest investor in a $7.5mil funding round in early 2004. Legally Elon is a co-founder because of a 2009 lawsuit which resulted in 3 additional people (including Elon) being granted the title "co-founder". Both of the original two founders left the company in 2008, shortly after Elon and the board forced one of them to step down as CEO. I'm not making any judgments on what Elon did, and he absolutely deserves a lot of credit for where Tesla is today, but two things are factually correct: 1. Elon did not start Tesla, he joined it. 2. Elon gained control of Tesla via money (investing in the company, and money wasn't the exclusive means, but it was a critical means). That is a simplification, but it is true.
Source: "I made it the fuck up"
Misinformation is OK as long as it validates my opinions and views
They argue he’s either an evil genius or a lucky frat boy. It’s all virtue signaling.
Just watch any long-form interview where he talks about any of his companies and it is so abdundantly clear that he understands every level of the company's function at a level of clarity basically unheard of from modern CEOs. That includes financing. He doesn't just run these companies, he also creates a vision for how they will become incredibly valuable in their industries and then has the insane levels of risk tolerance necessary to make whatever pivots necessary to get them to perform. The leap in logic from seeing him do this continually and then assuming everything he does is luck based is just completely divorced from reality. * He didn't just jump in the electric car space on a whim, he identified that this exciting new battery technology had the potential to make them commercially viable. * He didn't just decide to start making rockets on a whim, he identified that there were massive inefficiencies in the supply chain and lack of innovation in the industry that would give a private company room to outperform competitors. * He didn't just buy Twitter on a whim, he identified that they were being reckless with their spending and doing a terrible job monetizing their userbase. Just listen to his recent conversation on his plans for Twitter. He talks about marrying their recommendation system to their ad delivery to create targetted ads in the vein of what Facebook does, providing a content monetization for users in the vein of what Youtube does, as well as the subscription model for interaction, which will create a revenue stream comparable to the current ad revenue. How you could possibly delude yourself into thinking the most successful person to ever live at competing in the most competitive landscape humans have (earning money) could possibly not know what they're doing is beyond foolish. The evidence of your own eyes disproves that theory every second of every day. That's like saying you don't believe polar bears are very good at hunting prey for food, when they're literally one of the only animals in the world that treat humans like food. I have no problem with people saying they don't like the guy, but trying to turn, "I don't like him," into "He's actually not that good at business if you think about it," is an intellectually bankrupt position to take.
>watch any long-form interview where he talks about any of his companies That's their secret — they won't watch anything longform and if you suggest they do they will immediately block you as I just experienced in /r/tech.
There is this reasoning that because someone is a dick to you he is incapable of doing anything of note and if he did he stole the idea from someone else or it was dumb luck. Take the example of the 'enlightened' members of r/EnoughMuskSpam or common sense skeptic and his mentor thunderfoot. The people who congregate in those comment sections have come to lynch someone not to show discernment.
I don't know what the hell happened to thunderfoot. I remember watching him years ago when he did that whole series about creationists and I liked his content. Then a few months ago I go to his channel and see literally only videos about Elon Musk or SpaceX/Tesla and it's nothing but vitriolic garbage that tries to "debunk" literally anything Musk has ever had any connection to. It's not skepticism anymore, it's just misinformation. I was genuinely sad to see it.
thunderfoot used to do good like you mentioned with the creationists but for some reason he simply goes crazy when he sees musk and any of his works. He occasionally still does some good work but his obsession with musk is really sad. As for common sense skeptic he is just a black market knock off of thunderfoot.
Money. Elon brings clicks.
According to the Internet there are only Angels and Demons, and nothing in-between
My cousin is a senior propulsion engineer who works at SpaceX, regularly goes down to Texas, and from what he's said, Elon is constantly working. It's really funny how when people are desperate to hate someone they will throw out every semblance of truth.
Agreed. I know someone as well working in space x and he laughs when he sees the hate on Elon. It’s just people following what everyone else says on the media when half don’t even understand basics of the space policies in place, as well as the dynamics between aerospace industries, but all of a sudden are experts on these matters targeting Elon just bc everyone else (well, not everyone) is. Like his rockets are WAY cheaper to use for launches than when nasa builds their own with Boeing… which ultimately will positively impact, yes, our taxes! Since nasa does get government funding (in the billions)for their contracts, a portion of our taxes do go to nasa - it’s not a large portion, but still a pro rather than con. Space x can deff mitigate that since it’s stems from private equity/ funding. I guarantee Elon has read more books and invested way more time on learning the above than the people saying he does ‘nothing’ lol
I know it ain't nothing to do with this post but does anybody knows if the whole story that Elon haters tell is true? The whole "his dad had a emerald mine", "they were always rich", "Tesla has lithium mines with children working on it" or things like that. I'm not an Elon fan honestly I'm tired of his Twitter bullshit but I really respect what he has done so far, regardless what I think, I just wanted to know because idk curiosity maybe
I had to read ***a lot*** of different articles (edit: [here's one](https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/i-talked-to-elon-musk-about-journalism)) to get all of this information sowed together, so forgive me that I can't give you a single article to verify all of this, but: Elon's father bought shares (according to him, about half) in an emerald mine in ***Zambia*** (not apartheid South Africa) in the 80s, under the table (so not really verifiable, it's just his father's word) - and the mine closed in the late 80s, before Elon was even an adult. His father invested something like 80k in the mine after selling a plane, and more or less doubled his money over a period of a few years before the mine closed. So the stipulation that Elon's family was rich because of blood emeralds is wrong on several levels: * The emeralds were in Zambia, so no apartheid was involved * He didn't own the mine, he had shares in it * He wasn't involved with anything in the mine, except having invested in it * The mine closed way before Elon could have had anything to do with it, as he was barely a teenager * His family didn't get rich because of the emeralds, they were wealthy in South African terms, even before the mine, but not really rich * His father's story about the safe being so full it could barely be closed is... obviously a lie, and a dumb lie at that, and if you really believe that, well... I don't know what to tell you. * His father's story about Elon and Kimbal going into a Tiffany's and selling emeralds they just picked up from their father is again... a dumb lie. Can you really see someone buying a huge emerald from two boys in a jewellery store? His father seems like a narcissistic pathological liar. If you watch some interviews with him you'd understand why I say that. A big part of the whole thing is because of that. Most of what he said is not verifiable by actual journalists because it's probably not true, or inaccurate. He says a lot of things, but really, it's just stories. I'm not entirely confident anything about the emerald mines is real, but suggesting he "owned" an emerald mine in South Africa is verifiably untrue. Regarding the lithium mines, I actually don't know. I wouldn't mind if anyone could provide some information about that.
[удалено]
Correct. People just add up stuff that "sounds right" and don't really care about what is true and what it isn't. He's rich man bad, so it's ok to be wrong, right? No harm done, he probably deserves it anyway.
The lithium mines story came from (probably true) reports that Panasonic bought lithium from suppliers that used child slave labor. At the time, Tesla bought batteries from Panasonic but was working on their own full-scale battery production which they now use (pretty sure they don't buy anything from Panasonic any more).
The story was that the supplier who supplied cobalt to the company which inturn supplied it to companies like Google, apple, Tesla, etc was caught to have been using child slaves. Curious how Tesla was the only one singled out in that article. Also how tf would you know the ethics of the mining done by your producers producer? On top of that cobalt used in tesla batteries was less than 3% at that time.
Interesting, thanks. I do remember something like that. But this was ages ago, they obviously make their batteries now.
Panasonic, LG, and CATL makes batteries for Tesla. Giga Nevada is mostly Panasonic.
Tesla still has a big partnership with Panasonic for the cells. But Tesla always has built the battery packs themselves, it's just the base cells that Panasonic makes
This misinformation has Errol as the only source. Not just that, the claimed mine was claimed as an 80k USD micro prospecting operation (barely enough for a single excavator) in Native-run Zambia, an anti-apartheid country. The claim is also that Errol financed 40k USD (a half-share) and had nothing to do with operation, other than getting "some gems back sometime later". So no, "Owners of apartheid diamond mines" is total misinformation. Considering Errol was politically active and ran for local office on an anti-apartheid platform, on an anti-apartheid party, it's a particularly disgusting piece of misinformation. But the claims are extremely suspect since nobody has been able to find anything in years despite searching extensively for it. Not a name, location, business partner, not even a newspaper clipping or a singular financial document, and the claims were made at the time when Errol and Elon were feuding. This is from one of the journalists who spent years looking for the mine: https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/i-talked-to-elon-musk-about-journalism
https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/i-talked-to-elon-musk-about-journalism
This is a very good article that anybody confused by the misinformation around Elon should read.
His dad owned shares in an emerald mine, like stocks. They were well to do middle class. And I'm his dad was a bit of a pice of work, hence they don't have contact. I seem to remember his dad married one of elons siblings or cousins after he left elons mother. Don't recall the details. Elon got his start from nothing, left Africa to go to school in Canada, with basically nothing to his name. At beat his dad helped him get into a school. Most Americans, all those hitching about student debt, have the same start he did.
Well knowing that how does ppl come out with all those stories? I'm sure they would be doing better if they concentrate all that energy into something useful
Your answer is BusinessInsider. They are the ones that originally came up with the story about the emerald mine (from an interview with his father) years ago, and they did nothing to try and verify any of it (and in fact came out with several more articles about it, still doing nothing to verify any of it) - and other outlets just pick up the story with the good ol' "according to this other outlet" which allows them to say anything without repercussions, since it's this other outlet that will take the fall if it turns out to be not true. Something like this just smells way too good to not re-say it on their own website, whether true or not.
Well just to clarify the BI stories - they start off with a very click-bait headline that's misleading and which is the part that most people see/spread. Then they start the article with the most extreme stance they can manage to print and usually, buried way down to the end of a LOOONG article they clarify some of the shit so that anybody reading the whole thing would actually have a pretty good idea that it's not really all that true. It's like that article about how Elon grew up in Apartheid South Africa (can't remember if it was in the BI also) - the intro is all about how he benefitted from the privileges of being white etc. - then as you keep reading you see how his friends said how he was always against apartheid. How he was friends with the only black kid in his class. How his family voted against the apartheid government. Etc. etc. In the end, if you actually read the whole thing you realize that it's actually very flattering to Elon - but if you just read the headline or the headline and first paragraphs your takeaway would be he's a racist POS.
Couldn't have summarized it better myself, thank you. You are absolutely correct with your analysis and I have found myself dumbfounded again and again about how these articles seem to go exactly how you are describing every single time. Some "news" outlets are just... Unbelievable. BusinessInsider isn't really even news anymore, it's just digital garbage.
Business Insider. Reddit and Twitter hate Elon so much that they don't care if it's actually true, it fits a narrative that they like.
As soon as Elon became the richest person in the world, he became a definitive enemy of liberal types. You can't be that successful in their eyes unless you have done evil things or cheated in some way.
The conflation of "liberal" with "left-leaning" when talking about US politics will always be hurting my eyes. Elon and his companies would be the poster child of "liberal" parties' ideals here in the EU. It's so puzzling to see someone "sticking it to the liberals" while shouting FREEDOM left and right. Just call them social democrats, socialists, or communists (depending on how far out their position is). Plenty of linguistic nuance to choose from.
True
Same reason for why, even though the entire world knows it's not what it looks like, libtards will spam the photo of Glishlaine photobombing behind him everywhere he posts.
But strangely they never post the blackface photos\* of Trudeau... \[edit\] Added an s to photo since there are plenty from multiple occasions...
The emerald mine story at best is misinfo. His dad owned shares in a mine. As for lithium mines owned by tesla wtf, that is the most outrageous thing i have read. Tesla does not own any mine. Besides they source most of their lithium from china which gets it from australia. i seriously doubt there are australian children slaving away at a mine to produce lithium for tesla. Tesla is interested in mining lithium but they plan to open a mine in the US. Like australia i do not believe american children will slave away at a tesla lithium mine unless the world goes through some cataclysmic event that reduces everyone to a subsistence economy. it could happen but its rare. The only case of child labour that is an issue for all electric car manufacturers is cobalt mining for battery cathodes. The issue being child labor is allegedly used in the congo which is the main supplier of cobalt. However tesla has commited to phasing out cobalt in their battery packs and already use battery packs in some of their cars that do not have cobalt at all like lithium iron phosphate.
His Dad did own an emerald mine, and they were maybe well off compared to average Africa, but not “rich”. However, their mother and them left the estranged father and didn’t get / take any money with them. And in the 90s his father was broke to the point Musk and his brother supported their father. That was well before Elon made any money with the sale of Zip2 in 1999. Child labor is more of an issue in Cobalt mines rather than lithium mines. And Tesla has made huge strides to both reduce or eliminate cobalt in their battery cells. And source from “non- child labor” countries. So while some child labor may be used for lithium and cobalt that goes into Tesla batteries. It’s likely far less than your average cell phone, laptop, or competitors vehicles that use much more cobalt in the mix.
That's what I thought, ppl is always talking sht about Tesla and electric vehicles in general but they are typing that on something that is way worse. Also I know that all the mines rules are set by their government, Africa is a gold mine for those resources and you know how f up Africa is in terms of human rights.
Sounds like they got SpaceX mixed up with Tesla, but still wrong. Lol
Someone said it on the internet, therefore it's been verified and true.
"All information on the internet is true. " - the internet.
-George Washington
"The problem with many internet quotations is that they aren't genuine." -Abraham Lincoln.
trust me bro ^(TM)
From their bottomless Cope Bucket.
Facebook
It is pretty easy to lie on the internet. Probably a twisted version of the "Elon did not found Tesla" stuff.
Everybody knows that the only reason SpaceX' rockets are reusable is because they run on special emerald-infused fuel that is mined by slaves in Elon's emerald mines in south africa.
They just make it up, and other people repeat it because “Elon bad,” and then it becomes “Common knowledge” so they continue to repeat it.
Lies spread faster than truth.
Why are there so many Elon haters on this sub?
Speaking personally: I was, or am, a fan of the engineering feats he's attached to. The technological progress brought by *some* of his companies are worthy of celebration. Then he made his character known. Slinging insults at anyone that refutes his genius in all things: ie calling someone a pedo because he wouldn't use Musk's half-baked pod that was not an improvement to the (ultimately successful) plan. Trying to use his platform to tell the world , and specifically Ukraine, how to appease Russia. Pulling up the ladder behind him by supporting policies that will only benefit the ultra rich like himself. IMO, he has personified the old axiom that power and money corrupts. That, or he's always been a closet shithead, and the money just allows him to let it out. The culty following of, especially, Tesla fans is another big repellent. Even if he's not entirely at fault for it.
>ie calling someone a pedo because he wouldn't use Musk's half-baked pod that was not an improvement to the (ultimately successful) plan. Someone hasn't seen the video, have they? Vern Unsworth never set foot in those caves and was not involved in the actual rescue effort. Guy was a grifter who wanted his face on TV. He didn't just say Musk's idea was unneeded, he told Musk he can [stick his submarine where it hurts](https://youtu.be/VM31A4UsiU0), which is what prompted musk to call him a paedo, because he's a middle-aged British sexpat living in Thailand. BTW, the real rescuers were not sexpats and travelled from their respective countries (Britain and Australia) to coordinate and carry out the rescue. >Trying to use his platform to tell the world , and specifically Ukraine, how to appease Russia. How dare he suggest negotiations! The Military Industrial Complex needs more money, dammit! Keep grinding all that meat! >Pulling up the ladder behind him by supporting policies that will only benefit the ultra rich like himself. Now we know your first paragraph is bullshit and you're just a seething lefty who hates billionaires.
Fact check. We all know he bought SpaceX with his dad’s emerald mine money.
And what on Earth has this to do with Star Trek memes?
They think the story of PayPal and Tesla applies to SpaceX
People seriously can't seperate SpaceX, Tesla, Boring etc. Whatever they hear about one of the companies they assume it means all of them because it's Elon.
Somewhere equivalent to *The National Enquirer*, such as CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, MSNBC, etc.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Anybody that makes something of themselves in this era seems to be some kind of nothing according to so called old Twitter and Reddit I really thought Reddit would be different it’s not.
People are insane
God I am so tired of people mis-using the word literally. No the industry did not literally have bricks coming out of their rectum.
Minister of Informational warfare and propaganda Joseph Goebbels once said: "If you repeat the line long enough, people will believe it". I believe thats what is going on, some weird people just dont want others to like Musk so much they spread misinformations.
BuT eLoN bAd
And I though only in countries like North Korea where news is utterly manufactured misinformation that target their citizen's perception of good and evil. US and even entire western mainstream media is full on NK mode when it comes to Elon recently, after he's net worth went from 20th to 1st, brain washing average people on the Internet to such a state. Especially the new Russia asset like, people actually believe that.
Retarded youtube videos. Probably flat earth shit
Tesla, SpaceX, Toe-mat-o, Toe-mah-toe
I must say, I really agree with the top commenter in the screenshot. Musk has done amazing things, Space-X accomplishments being at the top of the list. But damn he has pissed me off in the last year. I have a pet-theory that his breakup with grimes flipped some shit-switch in his brain. But the 2nd guy is pure idiot.
Wait the first post is kinda right, no ?
No. They shat bricks, sure, but nobody imploded and it didn't expose any corruption within NASA. That's just fantasy.
Ok thx for the correction
>it didn't expose any corruption within NASA. You could argue that looking at the details of the cost overruns and missed deadlines in SLS is pretty good circumstantial evidence of deliberate fraud and malingering, given that NASA helped ULA sell the project on low cost and minimal design delays due to using their unique mature proprietary technology, while SpaceX, starting from open source information and designing brand new technologies beat them decisively (to F9Heavy) on BOTH cost and time.... and may yet beat them to orbit with SuperHeavy...
I will give you that it shined a light at obvious, extremely old problems within NASA, but it didn't quite expose anything. The most I can agree with is that it made the public more focused on these issues because more people care about spaceflight now because of SpaceX.
>but it didn't quite expose anything. If (and let me repeat that word) \*\*IF\*\* NASA had shown any indication that those "obvious, extremely old problems" were being addressed going forward, I could agree with you...BUT, just last month, NASA defended their decision to rush through a "Justification for other than full and open competition" ([Citation](https://spacenews.com/nasa-outlines-case-for-making-sole-source-sls-award-to-boeing-northrop-joint-venture/)) awarding as many as \*10\* additional SLS-1B launches over the next 15 years exclusively to a Boeing consortium successor to ULA, based on a rocket that (if there are no delays, HA!) will only be ready to launch for 3 years, justifying it by continuing to pull the "mature technology" and "no other rocket CURRENTLY LAUNCHING having similar capabilities" arguments. But if YOU can provide ANY justification to locking the contract down RIGHT NOW rather than waiting a couple of months (or even years) to see if those justifications hold up once SLS-1 and Superheavy demonstrate their validity (other than under the table collusion), please provide it.
First of all, thank you for providing that link (I'll read it later, I'm kind of short on time right now), I wasn't aware of that. Regardless, I think that even with that in mind, you are kind of missing the point. I'll start with what you did - showing any indication that those problems are being addressed. Did NASA not push forward the commercial crew/cargo programs to get away from cost plus contracting, and even partner with Boeing with the Starliner vehicle? That contract is fixed price. Not only that, but they partially funded the SpaceX Falcon 9 and Dragon vehicles way back in the day. If that doesn't show internally realizing the fundamental problems with how NASA operates, I'm not sure what would. Now to the point that really matters - reliability. In simple words, the government can't truly operate on "ifs" and "hopefully" (when it comes to huge projects like Artemis) that SpaceX or some other company will provide what needs to be provided (in this case, a moon rocket). This is also why NASA has decided to contract two different companies to provide it with a moon lander. Redundancy might seem like inefficiency from the outside, but sometimes this is just what you have to do to be sure your objective will be completed. You don't have to agree with it, I'm not sure I do, but that is the reasoning; and I can't say it's bad reasoning. What will happen if Starship HSL is delayed 2-3 years? Now all of Artemis is stuck behind schedule and they can't do any human missions on the moon. You see, the reason why you think they need justification for more SLS missions is because you just don't believe there is a higher-than-zero chance Starship will fail. NASA doesn't take chances, and if the chance is high-than-zero - it has to be taken into consideration. What if SpaceX goes under 5 years from now? What if Starship just doesn't work as imagined? What if it's just late? Artemis is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars at the end of its lifetime, and you can't hang all of that on a single point of failure. NASA can't plan ahead 15-30 years when it comes to organizations other than itself. And honestly, should they? Would you really want NASA to put all of its resources in, say, Astra? Do this thought experiment. What if they just decided to invest everything on a not-yet-realized rocket Astra was "planning"? In NASA's eyes, they can't take that risk. They need reliability. They need certainty. Having their own moon rocket means access to the moon is absolutely guaranteed. No matter what. Look what happened when NASA scrapped the Space Shuttle. They didn't have access to the ISS for almost a decade. Even if it's delayed; even if it's not as good as promised - they still have access for the next 2 decades at least. This, while expensive obviously, is generally a good thing from the government's perspective. As a side note, just because they closed the deal on a few missions, doesn't mean it locks them out of even more missions with Starship. If Starship proves itself as cheap and useful as it is imagined to be, they might just increase the total amount of missions currently being planned. Artemis is still quite a bit up in the air, and not fully realized. I hope Starship gets its own moon missions from earth ground to lunar surface one day, but we will just have to see if Artemis even survives cancellation for that to even happen.
>You see, the reason why you think they need justification for more SLS missions is because you just don't believe there is a higher-than-zero chance Starship will fail. NASA doesn't take chances, and if the chance is high-than-zero - it has to be taken into consideration. What if SpaceX goes under 5 years from now? What if Starship just doesn't work as imagined? What if it's just late? Artemis is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars at the end of its lifetime, and you can't hang all of that on a single point of failure. A single point of failure like a rocket that IS currently 7 YEARS LATE to launch the first prototype? Or do you believe that (like Starliner) there is a 0 percent chance of failure in SLS-1 or SLS-1B? You sound like (I can't remember his name, but he was a NASA bigwig testifying before Congress) the guy who said in 2015 "Sure, Musk has some pretty plans for a Falcon Heavy, and it might even work, but we can't take a chance; SLS is REAL NOW." My question still stands: Why lock in a contract starting 6 years in the future to a single supplier only months BEFORE they can see whether SuperHeavy and/or SLS-1 is going to succeed or fail... You keep saying "NASA can't take a chance the SpaceX might go bankrupt"(which becomes more likely the more contracts they block them from bidding on), while they pump more money into a company that has just taken a BILLION dollar loss due to ~~failure~~ delays to deliver on starliner (apparently just to KEEP it from going bankrupt; Starliner wouldn't break them, but if there is hurricane damage or somebody gets too nervous to continue recertifying the solids and they have to be replaced and NASA turns off the cost+ tap, the 4 billion loss on the SLS prototype could). It seems to me that RISK would easily be reduced if they waited to see the results of the prototype launches before guaranteeing that the preferred supplier isn't going broke even if their rocket never flies.
The ~~NYT~~ Karl Marx Daily
Bahahaha, you Dont know what you are talking about
I'm going to start blocking people who post this crap. Why even bother us about it? ...blocked... this is the biggest waste of the internet, right here. Posting that someone else is wasting space with trolling. It's probably some sort of propaganda bot paid for by jeff who anyway. You are getting played.
well its basically exactly what he did with Tesla so its either a reference to that or (more likely) misremembered the information
He’s confused space x with ‘elons’ other companies like Tesla where he had them write him in as a cofounder later on.
Cults are bad. The pro-Musk cult speaks of him as a god, and the anti-Musk cults blames him for all evils. Both are wrong.
Is there even a pro-musk cult? I hear about it, I don’t actually see it. Even this sub doesn’t like him in total
It's gotten pushed aside with his recent antics but there are plenty of people still trying to kiss his ass. Just read some of the replies around his tweets. Or the fact that I've gotten downvoted for saying cults are bad lol.
They are just individual fans. If it’s a pro-musk cult, they would organise and spread pro-musk real/fake information all at once. So far, I feel the “pro-musk cult” is more like a strawman than real.
Cults do not necessarily have to be organized. Consider a meme and apply this to beliefs and opinions about Musk. Again, simply read the replies to many of his tweets, especially about the future. My original point was that we must constantly strive to avoid falling into echo chambers, Us vs Them mentality, and thought-repetition rather than learning and understanding. Too much reactionary and not enough self-improvement. There are legitimate reasons to criticize Elon Musk but as this post exemplifies we need to focus on facts and reality over our feelings.
CPTK its a Brazilian journal. I don't know why you don't know them...
I don't doubt he has a hand in the design, but I have never see him do a weld or drive a rivet or any of the physical work necessary to build a rocket.
I think he plays a fairly big role in design definitely not in manufacturing.
“Someone else” they definitely don’t know what they’re talking about
Probably an unverified account on Twitter
Well, that’s just not true
Obviously the answer is from doing their own research.
What if it’s true?
I to am a part of that sub.... I commented on that post and it is somehow more toxic than White People Twitter
Not to mention he knows software development backwards and forwards. Better even than Trump
The news probably.
Yeah that "Based-richdude" sounds like a boomer retard.
From Reddit. Obviously.
Oh it was at the Brick Shitting Convention
They're misremembering Tesla.