Elon Musk: Force for anthropic advancement or self-serving con-artist?

No praise from me at Musk attempts at FSD by using Tesla drivers as alpha/beta testers who venture risking their lives and the lives of others! Don't understand why authorities haven't put down FSD outside the lab. In my view FSD can only work "safely" when all vehicles on the road are capable of FSD.
 
Space exploration is the future.

Only within a framework where it is commercially viable and profitable.

The space tourism industry is on life support now, after the wealthy instigators squeezed all the PR value they could get out of their ego trips to Earth's upper atmosphere. The market expects Virgin Galactic to fold when their current funds run dry. Their stock price is down +95% since 2021.
 
It's just an example for other people than Musk getting thrashed in other countries. Simply for *mildly* agreeing with the wrong political "tribe".
No it's not, it's you inserting your views on an unrelated topic. On top of that, your subpar analysis of "tribalism" fails to account for the value of the actual opinions held, and handwaves all criticism away as being inherently invalid because it's considered "tribalism". A tautology, and poorly-argued at that.

Space exploration is the future.
Perhaps. Privatised and for-profit? Perhaps not.

But again, this has nothing to do with you suggesting that people claim that Musk's impact on space exploration "has always been a negative", which at this point seems very much like a strawman. Unless you can point to where anybody said this?
 
That's certainly a self-driving car, but I don't see why we should be celebrating Musk for that. He bought the company that made that car and (of course) there have been attempts to make self-driving cars for decades now. If we're going to praise him unconditionally (or, rather, blame any of his detractors on mere tribalism), shouldn't he have done something genuinely useful or innovative?

You said:

"If we were going to celebrate Musk for self-driving cars, first we'd need some in action."

This is a self driving car in action. In additon, we have Starship and Starlink.

Even if Musk did only contribute to these developments, it's already awesome work that should be celebrated.

I stand by my assessment: If he were currently supporting Democrats, you guys would love him.
 
I stand by my assessment: If he were currently supporting Democrats, you guys would love him.

The ultra-tribalism that your comment is an expression of, is very much a US symptom. The two party political system. Us and them.

It doesn't exist here. Like, at all.
 
I stand by my assessment: If he were currently supporting Democrats, you guys would love him.

"You guys"? Your effort to assert that any criticism of Musk is due to tribalism appears to have convinced only yourself.
 
It mostly seems that Musk tried to tie himself to the Gop, possibly so that he would have an ally. Afaik this wasn't prominent at all before the barrage of criticism against Musk, and therefore the criticisms didn't rise from Musk being tied to Gop and a culture war.
Maybe it was his sociopathic or simply calculative move that tribalism can help him sustain fans, even if they are now politically tinted. May be similar to how shady businessmen buy sports-teams so as to have some political clout (since the fans vote).
 
Last edited:
Musk aligned himself with Trump when Trump was slightly ahead Biden in the polls and when gender politics was a hot potato in the political discourse.

If Trump loses again, I don't think Musk will hang around the stench of defeat for long. He'll find another 'political ally' on the right that he can dazzle with his wealth and personality of cult.
 

Musk's satellites 'blocking' view of the universe​

Radio waves from Elon Musk’s growing network of satellites are blocking scientists’ ability to peer into the universe, according to researchers in the Netherlands.
The new generation of Starlink satellites, which provide fast internet around the world, are interfering more with radio telescopes than earlier versions, they say.
The thousands of orbiting satellites are “blinding” radio telescopes and may be hindering astronomical research, according to Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy (ASTRON).
SpaceX, which owns Starlink, has not replied to a request from BBC News for comment.

The satellites provide broadband internet around the world, often to remote places, including challenging environments like Ukraine and Yemen.

They are also used to connect remote areas of the UK to fast internet. In 2022 tests showed that Starlink could deliver internet speeds four times faster than the average, according to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

But astronomers say this comes at a cost.

"Every time more of these are launched with these kinds of emission levels, we see less and less of the sky," Professor Jessica Dempsey, director of ASTRON, told BBC News.

"We're trying to look at things like the jets, which are emitted from black holes in the centre of galaxies. We also look at some of the earliest galaxies, millions and millions of light years away, as well as exoplanets," she said, highlighting the areas the satellite radiation is affecting.

Interference from the second generation, or V2, satellites was found by ASTRON to be 32 times stronger than the first generation.

The amount of radiation emitted exceeds regulations set by the industry body the International Telecommunications Union, Prof Dempsey added.

One estimate suggests there are 6,402 Starlink satellites currently in orbit at around 342 miles (550km) above Earth, making it the largest provider by far.

The satellites are relatively large - with 3m flat panels and an 8m solar array for power.

SpaceX's main competitor, OneWeb, has fewer than 1,000. But it is a growing business area. Amazon is developing its own network and hopes to launch at least 3,000 in the next few years.

By 2030 the number of satellites in orbit is expected to surpass 100,000.

The study was done using the LOFAR radio telescope in the Netherlands on a single day in July earlier this year.

Many objects in space, including distant galaxies and planets, emit light on the electromagnetic spectrum.

This radiation travels like waves and radio telescopes can pick up on those waves, allowing us to get a picture of things we can't see with our eyes.

But those waves are being disturbed by satellites.

The scientists found unintended electromagnetic radiation from almost all the V2 Starlink satellites observed.

It was about 10 million times brighter than from the weakest sources of light identified, they say.

Lead author Cees Bassa said it was like comparing the “faintest stars visible to the naked eye and the brightness of the full Moon.”
“Since SpaceX is launching about 40 second-generation Starlink satellites every week, this problem is becoming increasingly worse," he added.
Robert Massey, Deputy Executive Director of the Royal Astronomical Society in the UK, said: "it's very clear that if you have something this bright that is compromising a major radio observatory this much, then we need to do something and we need to do it quickly."
Asked about the value of the astronomy research, he said: "it's wrong to say that there is some science that you can simply dismiss. The applications may be decades or even longer in the future but they can be very fundamental and very important."
Scientists are also worried about light pollution from the satellites, and fear it is also interfering with optical telescopes.
Astronomers say they talked to SpaceX about radiation from the first generation of satellites and the company listened to their concerns.
But ASTRON now say the V2 have been found to be even more powerful.
"Turning LOFAR back up and seeing these booming signals from these new generation of V2 Mini SpaceX satellites was a bit shocking," says Prof Dempsey.
"This is actually threatening the entirety of ground based astronomy in every wavelength and in different ways. If it continues, without the sort of mitigation to make these satellites quiet, then it does become an existential threat for the kinds of astronomy we do," Prof Dempsey added.
The researchers stress that more regulation of space and how satellites operate is needed to avoid scientific work being compromised.
They said that as the largest provider of satellites, SpaceX could set a standard for limiting pollution.
Prof Dempsey said that simple actions like shielding the battery on the satellite could make a big difference and reduce the radiation emitted.
Some interference comes from faulty electronics, so this could prevent that happening.
But without action, “very soon the only constellations we will see will be human-made,” she added.
The findings are published in the scientific journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4dnr8zemgo
 
It's just annoying tribalism. Musk would be celebrated & loved for Starship, Starlink, self driving cars - if he would support Democrats (As he did years ago). Now, that he shifted to Republicans, the same people that celebrated him suddenly invent all kinds of accusations. And the Republicans celebrate him.

As soon as he goes back to supporting Democrats, the Democrats will love him again.

This has *nothing* to do with what Musk or others do or say. The only relevant question is what political tribe they support.
So you're claiming tribalism, i.e. an ad hominem argument, and base your claim entirely on people belonging to a group, which is itself an argument?
Take the absurd criticism of JK Rowling. It doesn't have *anything* to do with Rowling saying that genes determine sex. It's just that currently this statement is associated with conservative parties.
Please, just stop.
 
But again, this has nothing to do with you suggesting that people claim that Musk's impact on space exploration "has always been a negative", which at this point seems very much like a strawman. Unless you can point to where anybody said this?
...yes. Like I said previously. I used a strawman example, rather than feature specific unfair criticisms from the past thread, deliberately. To do otherwise would be against the spirit of the mod decision to begin a new thread.
Perhaps. Privatised and for-profit? Perhaps not.
Eventually, it will be that, though I'd agree that the state is a better vehicle for development at this point, at least until technological advancements make it more viable economically.
 
...yes. Like I said previously. I used a strawman example, rather than feature specific unfair criticisms from the past thread, deliberately.
Why? Other than invoking "the spirit of the thread", what constructive purpose does making stuff up as though it were an actual position held by real people serve?

Context is key. If you feel for whatever reason you can't invoke it, and I'm not blaming you for that . . . you need to think about what that means for the argument you're trying to make.
 
How many of you believe the same people would have come together and worked with the full faith that everyone else was working with the full faith to deliver the same or better results from 2008-2018 in private space tech and electric cars and batteries had there been no Musk?
 
He's certainly been a cheerleader for various technological pursuits, but how much was done because of him, rather than in spite of him will probably never be known.
 
He's certainly been a cheerleader for various technological pursuits, but how much was done because of him, rather than in spite of him will probably never be known.

If we go by the stories of his engineers and handlers at SpaceX and Tesla, it was much more in spite
 
This isn't 20D chess :)
@Arakhor
1726738104651.png
 
How many of you believe the same people would have come together and worked with the full faith that everyone else was working with the full faith to deliver the same or better results from 2008-2018 in private space tech and electric cars and batteries had there been no Musk?

When it comes to space there is no question that Musk was the driving force turning around industry that stagnated for 4 decades. Some renowned aerospace establishments mocked Musk's attempts at reusable rockets, on many occasions. In reality, cheap logistics to the orbit was the missing key element that bottlenecked early industrial expansion into space. In the course of 20 years the price of 1 launch was reduced from ±1 billion (est. cost of Space Shuttle launch) to ±10 mil through labour an collaboration of NASA and SpaceX. Since then thousands of companies brought their money signed up for space launches of surveillance, telecom, weather, medical, scientific satellite equipment following the reduction in cost. With the huge backlog of orders, the space companies, such as SpaceX and RocketLab, for the first time in history became "profitable". Of course, being relatively low on the arc of space exploration and having the requirement of constant development of cutting edge equipment required to survive the most extreme environments, space companies continue to reinvest all the gross profit into building more rockets, more launch/landing pads and more satellites, trying to capture as much of the early market as possible, while keeping revenue-expense sum near 0. But, there's clear indication in financial reporting of the bigger space companies that Space have recently become a viable business model, at least when it comes to monetising launches, assembling satellites and selling software.

I can't speculate on what would happen in an alternative universe, where Musk "wasn't there", however, in our universe what happened was a consequence of a concerted effort directed by Musk pushing forward the idea of reusability in orbit, in opposition to some very authoritative (at the time) members of the international space community.

As for electric/battery business I am not so sure Musk played pivotal role. He directed the force that put a fire under many legacy automaker asses, that's true. But the bigger revolution enabling cheap EV's happened in parallel in China, where the cost of battery production at scale was reduced drastically, enabling rapid worldwide expansion of the EV fleet. Had there been no China, Tesla would have far modest aspirations. As a side note, 10 Chinese companies own 85% of worldwide battery production capacity.
 
Top Bottom