8 ms·

How fucking lame, especially for a company that drug tests.

bumby 4y ago
I assuming they drug test because it's a requirement for govt contracts. Given that they get something like 98% of their funding from the govt, they can't exactly flippantly violate their best customers rules.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Under the Drug-free Workplace Act of 1988, workers at any company that receives a federal contract of $100,000 or more are prohibited from using or distributing drugs in the workplace, and the firm must have a drug-free workplace policy. Elon himself is subject to drug tests by the federal goverment
  - Me1000 4y ago
    I'm curious how well this is actually enforced. I would imagine a lot of big tech companies have $100k government contracts: Google, Microsoft, etc. Pretty sure employees of either company are not drug tested (and a large number of them would fail a test if it were required). I'm not sure what "drug-free workplace policy" means, while I was at Google I don't recall ever hearing "don't do drugs". On the other hand, I met a person recently who works for Lockheed and I'm pretty sure he was regularly (or randomly) tested at his workplace.
- Meegul 4y ago
  SpaceX undoubtedly does have US government agencies as some of their biggest customers, but 98% must be a gross exaggeration. The Falcon 9/Heavy have made nearly all of their launch revenues, and from just perusing the lists [1][2] of all launches, the US government can't be more than some low double digit percentage. SpaceX does receive other funding as part of various NASA contracts, but that funding is also related to providing services to them, not just receiving money for nothing. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He...
  - bumby 4y ago
    98% wasn't a number I pulled out of thin air. It's hard to know exact figures, but there are some people who publicly track what they can. [1] From that source, SpaceX has about ~$5.515B in contracts. Of that, about $5.411B is from government contracts (military, NASA). That's about 98.1%. There's probably a good chance it's higher, if they have govt contracts that aren't allowed to be public knowledge for security reasons. Also, nobody is claiming SpaceX receives "money for nothing" from the govt. They are a contractor who, at least at these relatively early stages, need government contracts to survive. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's the way many nascent industries survive. But we need to call a spade a spade. [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld7Dz__7_VjqMd2uZNgANL38BnWCetYGA5F-ykDjkvc/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld7Dz__7_VjqMd2uZNgA...
    - Meegul 4y ago
      That source only lists contracts where the price is known or can be reasonably estimated. Naturally, US government entities which have a semi-public bidding process are much easier to obtain a price estimate from. There's a large amount of foreign government contracts and private commercial contracts that are omitted from that list. Just from 2020 alone, SkySats 16-21, ANASIS-II, SXRS-1, SAOCOM 1B, GNOMES 1, Tybak-0172, SXM-7, and NROL-108. Edit: I did unreasonably make the assumption that you were making the case the SpaceX was receiving subisidies for "nothing" and I see that you weren't now.
      - bumby 4y ago
        Hell, SpaceX is private so we have limited information across all domains. I acknowledged in my first post that accurate numbers are hard to come by. But we have to work with what information we have. Foreign govts would still be govt money; many of those you listed are still public projects. Do you have estimates for those other private launches? If not, it's just speculation. Based on the information we have, it seems like it's safe to say the bulk of their launches are for governments. It's not a knock on them, and I'm not saying this is your perspective, but there's this kinda weird sentiment that they are some paragon of free-market capitalism when in fact they are a company highly dependent on government money. But that's exactly what I think is reasonable to expect in a nascent industry.
- starik36 4y ago
  > 98% of their funding from the govt That is nonsense. Look at their flight manifest and see how many flights are NASA or Space Force. Maybe like 3 launches in the next several months out of planned 25. https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/category/spacex/ https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/category/spacex/
  - bumby 4y ago
    Again, this comment, like most, misses the point. I'm saying they required govt contracts early to be a viable business. You're pointing to late-game information that doesn’t speak to that point. They can both be true without the point being "nonsense". The point is their business model is predicated on using govt contracts early, when they were an unproven commodity, because the govt is generally the only organization who can take those kinds of risks. In turn, this fosters the development of a space industry which can transition to more private revenue streams. Musk himself said they were in the 11th hour of bankruptcy before NASA "saved" them with a huge contract.
    - starik36 4y ago
      It doesn't miss the point because the OP is talking in the present tense. Not something from 10 years ago, e.g. "they get something like 98% of their funding from the govt"
      - bumby 4y ago
        The OP was intended to convey that their business model is predicated on heavy govt funding early. I never said they get, and will continue to require, that level of support in perpetuity. The intent was to show the level of govt support necessary to where they're at. Those "old" contracts are still in execution; they're not done and and in the past. Meaning the funding is still relevant and so are the rules attached to those funds. If you doubt that, what do you think will happen to SpaceX if they suddenly start going against their SpaceAct agreements that are part of those contracts? Even if you want to go against HN guidelines and not read the comment generously, they have still gotten the vast majority of their revenue from the govt in present tense. We can quibble about the exact percentage, and in reality it's probably impossible to pin-point without insider information. But we can use the information we know to estimate that it's still a major part of their business and it wouldn't be viable without it. And they'd still have to keep those customers happy by following their rules.
stronglikedan 4y ago
If someone can't quit for the time it takes to get a job, then I wouldn't want them on my team. It's usually one and done at these companies, not random throughout employment, and usually purely for outside regulation purposes. A modicum of self control isn't a bad thing.
- cma 4y ago
  > then I wouldn't want them on my team. > A modicum of self control isn't a bad thing. elon_smoking_with_clearance.gif
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  Do you also feel that way about alcohol? If you found social media posts of an employee drinking would you want to fire them?
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    He didn’t indicate people smoking marijuana should be fired
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
st_goliath 4y ago
Why do you immediately jump to drugs as a conclusion? Maybe they just want to commemorate the birthday of the visionary leader who recognized and funded the genius inventor that ultimately ended up being instrumental in getting the American space program of the ground? /s
- hackeraccount 4y ago
  Hitler?
  - lupyro 4y ago
    Yes, more specifically Hitler funding Wernher von Braun. I can see both sides of Wernher's fame and criticism but nonetheless people love to point out he was a Nazi.
gitfan86 4y ago
Putting a rocket into orbit requires a good understanding of science and reality. There is no actual scientific proof that occasionally using marijuana is a bad thing that would make a potential employee a bad employee. Maybe politicians don't like that reality, but they are not the ones putting people into orbit.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  To be clear, you think they are worse at building and launching rockets because they drug test employees? That seems like a stretch.
  - gitfan86 4y ago
    I didn't say that at all
    - nonethewiser 4y ago
      So you agree that is not sound reasoning?
      - gitfan86 4y ago
        No, implying that I think that "they are worse at building and launching rockets because they drug test employees" when I never said that at all is not sound reasoning, it is terrible reasoning actually
- robotresearcher 4y ago
  The traditional explanation is that drug users can be blackmailed and security compromised by adversaries threatening to reveal federally prohibited behavior. It seems antiquated. Edit: as cannabis use is transitioning to decriminalized, testing specifically for that will become antiquated. Standing crimes of course will remain leverage for bad guys.
  - gpm 4y ago
roer 4y ago
Joking around is fun and mostly free :)
- typon 4y ago
  So is doing drugs. Not the free part though :p
rlt 4y ago
Lighten up. I don’t think that was voluntary https://sports.yahoo.com/elon-musk-said-whole-spacex-121732228.html https://sports.yahoo.com/elon-musk-said-whole-spacex-1217322... I’m sure he won’t be smoking weed on podcasts any more.
sgtnoodle 4y ago
I worked there for 3 years and was never asked to do a drug test. Maybe that's the case now? Or maybe it's based on job responsibilities? The only time I was ever tested for drugs was when I started an internship at Toyota back in 2006 or so. I had to do a whole physical. At the time it seemed pretty silly. Later in my career I started a new job, and the new company's background check flagged me for being unable to verify my employment at Toyota. That also seemed pretty silly, considering the company's CTO used to be in the same department at Toyota back in the day!
HopenHeyHi 4y ago
I would like to thank you for your service, without people like you, those jokes truly wouldn't be worth making. You are what makes them hilarious. :D

I assuming they drug test because it's a requirement for govt contracts. Given that they get something like 98% of their funding from the govt, they can't exactly flippantly violate their best customers rules.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Under the Drug-free Workplace Act of 1988, workers at any company that receives a federal contract of $100,000 or more are prohibited from using or distributing drugs in the workplace, and the firm must have a drug-free workplace policy. Elon himself is subject to drug tests by the federal goverment
- Me1000 4y ago
  I'm curious how well this is actually enforced. I would imagine a lot of big tech companies have $100k government contracts: Google, Microsoft, etc. Pretty sure employees of either company are not drug tested (and a large number of them would fail a test if it were required). I'm not sure what "drug-free workplace policy" means, while I was at Google I don't recall ever hearing "don't do drugs". On the other hand, I met a person recently who works for Lockheed and I'm pretty sure he was regularly (or randomly) tested at his workplace.
Meegul 4y ago
SpaceX undoubtedly does have US government agencies as some of their biggest customers, but 98% must be a gross exaggeration. The Falcon 9/Heavy have made nearly all of their launch revenues, and from just perusing the lists [1][2] of all launches, the US government can't be more than some low double digit percentage. SpaceX does receive other funding as part of various NASA contracts, but that funding is also related to providing services to them, not just receiving money for nothing. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches_(2010%E2%80%932019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He...
- bumby 4y ago
  98% wasn't a number I pulled out of thin air. It's hard to know exact figures, but there are some people who publicly track what they can. [1] From that source, SpaceX has about ~$5.515B in contracts. Of that, about $5.411B is from government contracts (military, NASA). That's about 98.1%. There's probably a good chance it's higher, if they have govt contracts that aren't allowed to be public knowledge for security reasons. Also, nobody is claiming SpaceX receives "money for nothing" from the govt. They are a contractor who, at least at these relatively early stages, need government contracts to survive. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's the way many nascent industries survive. But we need to call a spade a spade. [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld7Dz__7_VjqMd2uZNgANL38BnWCetYGA5F-ykDjkvc/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ld7Dz__7_VjqMd2uZNgA...
  - Meegul 4y ago
    That source only lists contracts where the price is known or can be reasonably estimated. Naturally, US government entities which have a semi-public bidding process are much easier to obtain a price estimate from. There's a large amount of foreign government contracts and private commercial contracts that are omitted from that list. Just from 2020 alone, SkySats 16-21, ANASIS-II, SXRS-1, SAOCOM 1B, GNOMES 1, Tybak-0172, SXM-7, and NROL-108. Edit: I did unreasonably make the assumption that you were making the case the SpaceX was receiving subisidies for "nothing" and I see that you weren't now.
    - bumby 4y ago
      Hell, SpaceX is private so we have limited information across all domains. I acknowledged in my first post that accurate numbers are hard to come by. But we have to work with what information we have. Foreign govts would still be govt money; many of those you listed are still public projects. Do you have estimates for those other private launches? If not, it's just speculation. Based on the information we have, it seems like it's safe to say the bulk of their launches are for governments. It's not a knock on them, and I'm not saying this is your perspective, but there's this kinda weird sentiment that they are some paragon of free-market capitalism when in fact they are a company highly dependent on government money. But that's exactly what I think is reasonable to expect in a nascent industry.
starik36 4y ago
> 98% of their funding from the govt That is nonsense. Look at their flight manifest and see how many flights are NASA or Space Force. Maybe like 3 launches in the next several months out of planned 25. https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/category/spacex/ https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/category/spacex/
- bumby 4y ago
  Again, this comment, like most, misses the point. I'm saying they required govt contracts early to be a viable business. You're pointing to late-game information that doesn’t speak to that point. They can both be true without the point being "nonsense". The point is their business model is predicated on using govt contracts early, when they were an unproven commodity, because the govt is generally the only organization who can take those kinds of risks. In turn, this fosters the development of a space industry which can transition to more private revenue streams. Musk himself said they were in the 11th hour of bankruptcy before NASA "saved" them with a huge contract.
  - starik36 4y ago
    It doesn't miss the point because the OP is talking in the present tense. Not something from 10 years ago, e.g. "they get something like 98% of their funding from the govt"
    - bumby 4y ago
      The OP was intended to convey that their business model is predicated on heavy govt funding early. I never said they get, and will continue to require, that level of support in perpetuity. The intent was to show the level of govt support necessary to where they're at. Those "old" contracts are still in execution; they're not done and and in the past. Meaning the funding is still relevant and so are the rules attached to those funds. If you doubt that, what do you think will happen to SpaceX if they suddenly start going against their SpaceAct agreements that are part of those contracts? Even if you want to go against HN guidelines and not read the comment generously, they have still gotten the vast majority of their revenue from the govt in present tense. We can quibble about the exact percentage, and in reality it's probably impossible to pin-point without insider information. But we can use the information we know to estimate that it's still a major part of their business and it wouldn't be viable without it. And they'd still have to keep those customers happy by following their rules.

stronglikedan 4y ago

If someone can't quit for the time it takes to get a job, then I wouldn't want them on my team. It's usually one and done at these companies, not random throughout employment, and usually purely for outside regulation purposes. A modicum of self control isn't a bad thing.

cma 4y ago
> then I wouldn't want them on my team. > A modicum of self control isn't a bad thing. elon_smoking_with_clearance.gif
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sebzim4500 4y ago
Do you also feel that way about alcohol? If you found social media posts of an employee drinking would you want to fire them?
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  He didn’t indicate people smoking marijuana should be fired
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

st_goliath 4y ago

Why do you immediately jump to drugs as a conclusion? Maybe they just want to commemorate the birthday of the visionary leader who recognized and funded the genius inventor that ultimately ended up being instrumental in getting the American space program of the ground? /s

hackeraccount 4y ago
Hitler?
- lupyro 4y ago
  Yes, more specifically Hitler funding Wernher von Braun. I can see both sides of Wernher's fame and criticism but nonetheless people love to point out he was a Nazi.

gitfan86 4y ago

Putting a rocket into orbit requires a good understanding of science and reality. There is no actual scientific proof that occasionally using marijuana is a bad thing that would make a potential employee a bad employee. Maybe politicians don't like that reality, but they are not the ones putting people into orbit.

nonethewiser 4y ago
To be clear, you think they are worse at building and launching rockets because they drug test employees? That seems like a stretch.
- gitfan86 4y ago
  I didn't say that at all
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    So you agree that is not sound reasoning?
    - gitfan86 4y ago
      No, implying that I think that "they are worse at building and launching rockets because they drug test employees" when I never said that at all is not sound reasoning, it is terrible reasoning actually
robotresearcher 4y ago
The traditional explanation is that drug users can be blackmailed and security compromised by adversaries threatening to reveal federally prohibited behavior. It seems antiquated. Edit: as cannabis use is transitioning to decriminalized, testing specifically for that will become antiquated. Standing crimes of course will remain leverage for bad guys.
- gpm 4y ago

roer 4y ago

Joking around is fun and mostly free :)

typon 4y ago
So is doing drugs. Not the free part though :p

rlt 4y ago

Lighten up. I don’t think that was voluntary https://sports.yahoo.com/elon-musk-said-whole-spacex-121732228.html https://sports.yahoo.com/elon-musk-said-whole-spacex-1217322... I’m sure he won’t be smoking weed on podcasts any more.

sgtnoodle 4y ago

I worked there for 3 years and was never asked to do a drug test. Maybe that's the case now? Or maybe it's based on job responsibilities? The only time I was ever tested for drugs was when I started an internship at Toyota back in 2006 or so. I had to do a whole physical. At the time it seemed pretty silly. Later in my career I started a new job, and the new company's background check flagged me for being unable to verify my employment at Toyota. That also seemed pretty silly, considering the company's CTO used to be in the same department at Toyota back in the day!

HopenHeyHi 4y ago

I would like to thank you for your service, without people like you, those jokes truly wouldn't be worth making. You are what makes them hilarious. :D