8 ms·

Don't be disingenuous, Elon is getting shit for trying to undermine the actions and goals of the state department. A charitable interpretation of his actions i

Don't be disingenuous, Elon is getting shit for trying to undermine the actions and goals of the state department. A charitable interpretation of his actions is that he's occasionally unable to contain his narcissistic traits, a less charitable interpretation is that he's looking for leverage to get his dick out of the hornet's nest that is the Twitter deal, and the least charitable option is that Russia is applying some leverage to force his hand. No matter the reason there's a good chance he'll end up regretting that (to the extent he's able to feel things like regret anyway).

ganoushoreilly 4y ago
At what point is he obligated to provide services and capabilities gratis? By that same argument shouldn't other defense contractors be providing weapons gratis instead of receiving money / new orders? The state department clearly wants to have weapons sent to ukraine, why should starlink not be compensated properly?
- pmyteh 4y ago
  He's not obliged to do anything. He got good PR from the initial commitment, and is now getting bad PR resiling from it. Which seems entirely straightforward.
  - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
    Op implied Elon's goal is soley to undermine the State Department. I'm arguing none of that matters if at the end of the day, he's providing a capability and service, that has and will continue to lose money for his company. $80 million is no small amount. We also don't know what he asked for behind doors, given the anti elon nature of things these days, what's to say they're not just trying to take advantage of the situation?
- katmannthree 4y ago
  If he just wanted money he would have asked (privately) and he would have gotten it. Instead he called Putin to talk about "peace" (read: appeasement) and then posts literal Kremlin talking points to Twitter and only mentioned getting money to maintain starlink after getting a ton of people telling him to fuck off.
  - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
    Do you have proof of this call? He's refuted it in public.
    - n8cpdx 4y ago
      https://www.newsweek.com/russia-kremlin-peskov-details-musk-phone-call-putin-1751071 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-kremlin-peskov-details-musk-... Literally first DuckDuckGo result. Third: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/10/12/kremlin-denies-musk-putin-war-chat-ever-took-place/?sh=1ca4a62a507e https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/10/12/kremlin-de... He has access, has talked in the past, repeats kremlin talking points, threatens to withhold access to strategic technology from the kremlin’s victims, and then claims to not be involved when he starts taking heat for it. Musk is notoriously dishonest, I don’t know why his claims are seen as trustworthy given the surrounding context.
      - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
        "their conversation took place a year and a half ago." Pay attention to the details. A year and half ago he was not engaged in a conflict with Ukraine. Plenty of people send letters and or talk with heads of state. You think Bill gates hasn't spoken with numerous heads of state? Sure has, otherwise microsoft wouldn't have been in Russia, China, and other nations. So proof of this peace call is where? EDIT: I think you editing your post after being proven wrong is just as dishonest. Further your second post does nothing to help your argument. The kremlin will say what ever they need to for their agenda regardless. In this case they deny it and there is no way to prove it happened.
- phillipcarter 4y ago
  > At what point is he obligated to provide services and capabilities gratis? Not a whole lot of gratis. https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/14/23404069/spacex-ukraine-starlink-funding-elon-musk-internet-satellite-connectivity-us-government-funding https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/14/23404069/spacex-ukraine-... > CNN’s report also sheds light on who’s been footing the bill for Ukraine’s Starlink connectivity until now, and says that around 85 percent of the terminals were at least partially paid for by American, Polish, and British governments, as well as other organizations like NGOs.
  - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
    $80 million in costs already outside of the purchase of terminals. Right there in your article.
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago
      Yes the article quotes Musk’s claim that this has cost SpaceX $80 million. Many outsiders think that number is complete bullshit. Unless SpaceX plans on releasing its internal accounting, it might just come down to whether you consider Musk trustworthy. I personally find it a bit odd that Musk would suddenly publicly make these demands instead of just having SpaceX call their contacts in the DOD. I presume it makes the DOD question future involvement with companies controlled by Musk.
      - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
        I would counter that I bet they have been having these discussions for some time and this is all being used to sway opinion against him. Like him or not, the cool thing now is to hate on musk and worry about what could happen with twitter and this helps build that negative sentiment. The state department doesn't benefit from that transaction either and the federal government poking at him over the deal has left as sour taste i'm sure. From the outside the only fact we can ascertain is that we know his services are not net 0 in cost, so by that assumption any expense is one he can argue he deserves support on.
- papito 4y ago
  There is more going on here. This is beyond just some pragmatic accounting on Musk's part. He literally fell for Russian disinfo claiming that he was on some "Ukrainian hitlist": https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/status/1581068904021241857 https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/status/1581068904021241857 The guy cannot do basic due diligence on easily verifiable crap spewed out on the platform that he is buying.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kcplate 4y ago
> Elon is getting shit for trying to undermine the actions and goals of the state department. Yes, how dare he suggest that a peaceful resolution involving some compromise of both sides of the conflict might be better for humanity to avoid it escalating into full world war with the inevitable nuclear apocalypse. Certainly we can’t undermine those actions and goals—it would be simply terrible to avoid all that death and destruction.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > some compromise of both sides If you interrupted a rape, would you suggest a compromise where he promises to finish up quickly in order to keep it peaceful?
  - kcplate 4y ago
    Would you interfere at the probable cost of a billion or more lives? I’m not suggesting by any means what Russia is doing is justified and not horrific. I am suggesting that we are dealing with a country that has a nuclear arsenal that can do a significant amount of damage and may be willing to use it. That has to be considered.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Do you have a limit? If he wants Lithuania and says he’ll use nukes do you say ‘well ok you’ve got nukes’ and sorry to everyone who lives there and just hand it over to him? Also I just think ‘compromise’ is a ludicrous term to use - it’s not an informed business-like ‘compromise’ to allow someone to permanently subjugate you it’s submission.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        Do you not have a limit? Let's say a tyrannical dictator wants to brutally oppress millions of people and threatens that if you try to stop him, he'll shell Seoul and may throw a few nukes too. Not many nukes, just a few. Do you run in guns blazing to throw him out of power? For the past several decades, the US has seen fit to leave the Kim family in power because the alternatives have all been judged worse for a variety of reasons. So of course there are limits, but where are the limits? That's the meat of the matter, and there is no one objectively correct answer. Where those limits are is a political matter, and can be debated endlessly. (FWIW, I hope the US government continues to support Ukraine in their war against the invading russians. But I'm not going off on people who suggest there is a limit; obviously there is a limit. The Biden administration certainly perceives such limits, otherwise why isn't the full force of the US Military in Ukraine right now fighting alongside Ukrainians? Because there are limits and the Biden administration is realistic enough to recognize that.)
systemvoltage 4y ago
Ukrainian officials on Elon: 1. https://twitter.com/fedorovmykhailo/status/1580934203385860097 https://twitter.com/fedorovmykhailo/status/15809342033858600... 2. https://twitter.com/fedorovmykhailo/status/1580275214272802817 https://twitter.com/fedorovmykhailo/status/15802752142728028...
- rrss 4y ago
  2 more: https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1577006943499350016 https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1577006943499350016 https://twitter.com/melnykandrij/status/1576977000178208768 https://twitter.com/melnykandrij/status/1576977000178208768
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    Nothing to do with Starlink though which is what OP is discussing.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

ganoushoreilly 4y ago

At what point is he obligated to provide services and capabilities gratis? By that same argument shouldn't other defense contractors be providing weapons gratis instead of receiving money / new orders? The state department clearly wants to have weapons sent to ukraine, why should starlink not be compensated properly?

pmyteh 4y ago
He's not obliged to do anything. He got good PR from the initial commitment, and is now getting bad PR resiling from it. Which seems entirely straightforward.
- ganoushoreilly 4y ago
  Op implied Elon's goal is soley to undermine the State Department. I'm arguing none of that matters if at the end of the day, he's providing a capability and service, that has and will continue to lose money for his company. $80 million is no small amount. We also don't know what he asked for behind doors, given the anti elon nature of things these days, what's to say they're not just trying to take advantage of the situation?
katmannthree 4y ago
If he just wanted money he would have asked (privately) and he would have gotten it. Instead he called Putin to talk about "peace" (read: appeasement) and then posts literal Kremlin talking points to Twitter and only mentioned getting money to maintain starlink after getting a ton of people telling him to fuck off.
- ganoushoreilly 4y ago
  Do you have proof of this call? He's refuted it in public.
  - n8cpdx 4y ago
    https://www.newsweek.com/russia-kremlin-peskov-details-musk-phone-call-putin-1751071 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-kremlin-peskov-details-musk-... Literally first DuckDuckGo result. Third: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/10/12/kremlin-denies-musk-putin-war-chat-ever-took-place/?sh=1ca4a62a507e https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/10/12/kremlin-de... He has access, has talked in the past, repeats kremlin talking points, threatens to withhold access to strategic technology from the kremlin’s victims, and then claims to not be involved when he starts taking heat for it. Musk is notoriously dishonest, I don’t know why his claims are seen as trustworthy given the surrounding context.
    - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
      "their conversation took place a year and a half ago." Pay attention to the details. A year and half ago he was not engaged in a conflict with Ukraine. Plenty of people send letters and or talk with heads of state. You think Bill gates hasn't spoken with numerous heads of state? Sure has, otherwise microsoft wouldn't have been in Russia, China, and other nations. So proof of this peace call is where? EDIT: I think you editing your post after being proven wrong is just as dishonest. Further your second post does nothing to help your argument. The kremlin will say what ever they need to for their agenda regardless. In this case they deny it and there is no way to prove it happened.
phillipcarter 4y ago
> At what point is he obligated to provide services and capabilities gratis? Not a whole lot of gratis. https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/14/23404069/spacex-ukraine-starlink-funding-elon-musk-internet-satellite-connectivity-us-government-funding https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/14/23404069/spacex-ukraine-... > CNN’s report also sheds light on who’s been footing the bill for Ukraine’s Starlink connectivity until now, and says that around 85 percent of the terminals were at least partially paid for by American, Polish, and British governments, as well as other organizations like NGOs.
- ganoushoreilly 4y ago
  $80 million in costs already outside of the purchase of terminals. Right there in your article.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    Yes the article quotes Musk’s claim that this has cost SpaceX $80 million. Many outsiders think that number is complete bullshit. Unless SpaceX plans on releasing its internal accounting, it might just come down to whether you consider Musk trustworthy. I personally find it a bit odd that Musk would suddenly publicly make these demands instead of just having SpaceX call their contacts in the DOD. I presume it makes the DOD question future involvement with companies controlled by Musk.
    - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
      I would counter that I bet they have been having these discussions for some time and this is all being used to sway opinion against him. Like him or not, the cool thing now is to hate on musk and worry about what could happen with twitter and this helps build that negative sentiment. The state department doesn't benefit from that transaction either and the federal government poking at him over the deal has left as sour taste i'm sure. From the outside the only fact we can ascertain is that we know his services are not net 0 in cost, so by that assumption any expense is one he can argue he deserves support on.
papito 4y ago
There is more going on here. This is beyond just some pragmatic accounting on Musk's part. He literally fell for Russian disinfo claiming that he was on some "Ukrainian hitlist": https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/status/1581068904021241857 https://twitter.com/uamemesforces/status/1581068904021241857 The guy cannot do basic due diligence on easily verifiable crap spewed out on the platform that he is buying.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kcplate 4y ago

> Elon is getting shit for trying to undermine the actions and goals of the state department. Yes, how dare he suggest that a peaceful resolution involving some compromise of both sides of the conflict might be better for humanity to avoid it escalating into full world war with the inevitable nuclear apocalypse. Certainly we can’t undermine those actions and goals—it would be simply terrible to avoid all that death and destruction.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> some compromise of both sides If you interrupted a rape, would you suggest a compromise where he promises to finish up quickly in order to keep it peaceful?
- kcplate 4y ago
  Would you interfere at the probable cost of a billion or more lives? I’m not suggesting by any means what Russia is doing is justified and not horrific. I am suggesting that we are dealing with a country that has a nuclear arsenal that can do a significant amount of damage and may be willing to use it. That has to be considered.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Do you have a limit? If he wants Lithuania and says he’ll use nukes do you say ‘well ok you’ve got nukes’ and sorry to everyone who lives there and just hand it over to him? Also I just think ‘compromise’ is a ludicrous term to use - it’s not an informed business-like ‘compromise’ to allow someone to permanently subjugate you it’s submission.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      Do you not have a limit? Let's say a tyrannical dictator wants to brutally oppress millions of people and threatens that if you try to stop him, he'll shell Seoul and may throw a few nukes too. Not many nukes, just a few. Do you run in guns blazing to throw him out of power? For the past several decades, the US has seen fit to leave the Kim family in power because the alternatives have all been judged worse for a variety of reasons. So of course there are limits, but where are the limits? That's the meat of the matter, and there is no one objectively correct answer. Where those limits are is a political matter, and can be debated endlessly. (FWIW, I hope the US government continues to support Ukraine in their war against the invading russians. But I'm not going off on people who suggest there is a limit; obviously there is a limit. The Biden administration certainly perceives such limits, otherwise why isn't the full force of the US Military in Ukraine right now fighting alongside Ukrainians? Because there are limits and the Biden administration is realistic enough to recognize that.)

systemvoltage 4y ago

Ukrainian officials on Elon: 1. https://twitter.com/fedorovmykhailo/status/1580934203385860097 https://twitter.com/fedorovmykhailo/status/15809342033858600... 2. https://twitter.com/fedorovmykhailo/status/1580275214272802817 https://twitter.com/fedorovmykhailo/status/15802752142728028...

rrss 4y ago
2 more: https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1577006943499350016 https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1577006943499350016 https://twitter.com/melnykandrij/status/1576977000178208768 https://twitter.com/melnykandrij/status/1576977000178208768
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Nothing to do with Starlink though which is what OP is discussing.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]