11 ms·

I think the recent wave of vitriol is mostly associated with his decision to destroy Twitter in the process of attempting to make it a safe space for racists.

I think the recent wave of vitriol is mostly associated with his decision to destroy Twitter in the process of attempting to make it a safe space for racists. That and his seeming to align himself with our strategic adversaries on the world stage. The latter is possibly dismissable as "Well, that's just your opinion, man..." but he gives muscle to his opinion by making business decisions with strategic policy implications (e.g. turn off Ukraine starlink service at strategig moments..) The twitter vandalism is very clearly "his works".

sneak 3y ago
[flagged]
- feoren 3y ago
  [flagged]
- mongol 3y ago
  Are you of the opinion that Ukraine is involved with murder and slaughter?
  - snovv_crash 3y ago
    AT&T wouldn't be happy with you pulling their cell tower repeaters into a warzone either. Using shared infrastructure for war purposes exposes it to retaliation.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      Except no one is going retaliate against starlink as it would stop _everyone_ from launching satellites.
      - sneak 3y ago
        Humans who subscribe to game theory have gambled against Russia with much higher stakes than these in years past. I would not depend on “nobody can launch satellites” being sufficient deterrent when GTO brinksmanship with the USSR put only Stanislav Petrov between reality and total human extinction. If you believe, as I do, that Ukraine’s ability to export shale gas to the west is a literal existential crisis for Russia as a state in the long term, then it makes sense that they would go to quite significant extents indeed to ensure that that remains impossible, right up to things that would mostly destroy Russian society in the process, tragically.
        _kbh_ 3y ago
        I think the invasion is less about Russia seeing Ukraine as an existential threat and more about Russia seeing Ukraine as rightfully there’s to take. That’s why I don’t think Russia would actually retaliate in any significant way to the use of starlink. They know it’s not an existential threat and that’s why they continue to draw red lines and when they get crossed literally nothing happens.
        sneak 3y ago
        If the first were true, I doubt Russia would be spending so much in the way of resources on simple territorial expansion (with the implicit long term expense of huge resources governing the conquered/occupied territory). The invasion isn’t good ROI for them otherwise, even if it went well, which it does not appear to be. I think the USSR restoration empire building narrative is overblown. Also, if what you say about red lines were true, the US would not be so hesitant to provide lots of advanced aircraft to Ukraine, which they have not done as yet despite this clearly being a full enemy-of-my-enemy proxy war. Signs point to everyone trying to avoid escalation.
        _kbh_ 3y ago
        > I think the USSR restoration empire building narrative is overblown. You should tell that to Russian media who posted this very long very USSR restoration empire building victory article a handful of days into the war. >>https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20... > Also, if what you say about red lines were true, the US would not be so hesitant to provide lots of advanced aircraft to Ukraine, which they have not done as yet despite this clearly being a full enemy-of-my-enemy proxy war. They are literally starting training on the aircraft next month iirc, and will receive them in 4-6 months after that. Nothing happened when all of Russias red lines were crossed, the Americans are merely boiling the frog to avoid escalation. I think Russias red lines are akin to chinas final warning now days, a joke.
  - sneak 3y ago
    Yes, obviously, they are at war with Russia. All combatants in all non-proxy wars are involved in the systematic premeditated murder of as many of the Other Guys as possible.
- avmich 3y ago
  Details matter. There's the war going on. Unfortunately those teenagers in the aggressor's army have to be targeted, otherwise they'll play to the aggressor's hand. Do you like to make decisions like that? You don't need to answer.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > They (the Ukrainians) requested that he re-enable it in that area specifically so that mass murder could be conducted with it, and he declined. (This is an example of the geopolitical power he wields, and it will only increase after Starship.) Couching it in “strategic policy decisions” euphemism doesn’t change the fact that they tried to draft him into a conspiracy to slaughter hundreds of teenage Russian conscripts. A lot of this paragraph is objectively false I don’t think conscripts are the ones that man boats and submarines. Destroying those Russian missile boats and submarines would have taken out a large amount of the ships that where intentionally targeting Ukrainian civilians with cruise missiles.
- feoren 3y ago
  > They (the Ukrainians) requested that he re-enable it in that area specifically so that mass murder could be conducted with it Let me see if I have this right. We know that the Russian government spends inordinate time and money intentionally spreading false propaganda on the internet. We know Russia loves Musk because he supports their illegal invasion of Ukraine. We see sneak here talking about how the "existing geopolitical engineers" (unspecified; is this a dog whistle?) hate Musk because he's so strong, and how Ukraine is committing "mass murder" for resisting the illegal invasion of their country. And I get flagged for calling him a Russian propagandist? Are we really doing the Emperor's New Clothes thing? Can we not just call a spade a spade here? I get "assume good faith" -- it's a good rule -- but does it really have no limits? We really have to assume good faith in those who are claiming that destroying military targets that are being used by Russia in an illegal invasion of your country is tantamount to mass murder?
  - sneak 3y ago
    > We really have to assume good faith in those who are claiming that destroying military targets that are being used by Russia in an illegal invasion of your country is tantamount to mass murder? I reject the concept of “just war” in general in all instances and think all war is mass murder, definitionally. “Military targets” is a euphemism designed to diffuse blame for premeditated mass slaughter of human beings. It’s not something anyone wants to do, feel, or think about, so euphemisms like these are practically essential to our ability to cope with the world. There is another conflict happening simultaneously where you can see the exact same labelling-war playing out. The scores of dead children remain dead, the hospital remains in ruins regardless of whether it was a failed terrorist missile or a solemn and justified defense of a victim of illegal invasion. It takes two to tango. As I said, it’s not popular to be anti-war these days. Humans seem to like retribution and righting of perceived injustice more than they like peace. We still have the death penalty, for instance, a clear violation of our widely agreed-upon standard of human rights. Furthermore, even in your worldview, an American citizen using nominally American-jurisdiction hardware to enable airstrikes in a war zone that has nothing directly to do with America is an unforced escalation in the proxy war unrelated to “illegal invasion” that invites retaliation against Americans and American space-based assets. It’s a fool’s game even if you subscribe only to Realpolitik and don’t care one whit about the lives of enslaved Russian teenagers. > We know Russia loves Musk because he supports their illegal invasion of Ukraine. I have seen precisely nothing to support either of the claims in this sentence. They are speculation, not fact. “If you don’t support me, you de facto support my enemy” is not sound reasoning in war. One may simply be against violence in all forms, which seems much more plausible, given what we know about humans on Earth, especially skeptics like Musk who tend to resist pro-just-war state messaging.
zpeti 3y ago
> decision to destroy Twitter in the process of attempting to make it a safe space for racists Can you back that up, with actual data, and not the politically motivated articles from democrat aligned media? The only specific cases of this I’ve seen was an actual bot network saying the n word a lot when Elon took over, which was obviously a coordinated attack. Other than that, where is this racist hell hole that twitter has become apparently? Where is the proof?
- katbyte 3y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/30/elon-musk-twitter-hate-speech/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/30/elon-mu... https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-04-27/hate-speech-twitter-surged-since-elon-musk-takeover https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-04-27... https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/group-flagged-100-racist-hateful-001804603.html https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/group-flagged-100-rac...
sneak 3y ago
> or are very relevant to 99% of the things he is actually spending time and resources on Twitter is irrelevant; he is doing product (read: design for manufacture) design on electric cars, battery systems, rockets, internet access satellites, brain computer interfaces, solar, humanoid autonomous robots, and tunnel boring machines, in approximately that order. Twitter is like 20th on the list, but it’s a great target for narrative-based outrage (“the bullied one gets rich and buys the playground” etc). Also note that if you truly believe in freedom for one-to-many publishing of all legal speech (as I do) then an increase in racist publishing is naturally going to be a consequence of that. Freedom of expression for all is far more important than censoring racists (which doesn’t stop them from being racist or stop the spread of racism anyway).
- feoren 3y ago
  > the bullied one gets rich and buys the playground What version of Elon Musk are you thinking of here? Read literally anything he says and it's immediately clear that he's always been the bully. He wasn't some underdog who was bullied and pulled himself up by his bootstraps to prove everyone wrong, he's the son of an apartheid emerald mine owner who made some good business bets and has now figured out how to scale up his bullying to a national scale. The already-rich bully bought the playground so that nobody could stop him from bullying everyone even more. > Also note that if you truly believe in freedom for one-to-many publishing of all legal speech (as I do) then an increase in racist publishing is naturally going to be a consequence of that Ah, the old "I'm free to publish racism but you're not free to call me out when I do so". These free-speech "absolutists" always abandon their morals as soon as they get the opportunity to censor someone who is making fun of them for being a douchebag. It's always about wanting a spout-racism-free card, never about the inalienable rights of mankind.
  - avmich 3y ago
    I remember works of Musk before 2002. And I don't see where it is > but you're not free to call me out when I do so in the GP post, literally or in meaning. So... I think you're at least exaggerating too much, at least in some places. However I do see your point.
cryptoegorophy 3y ago
Genuinely curious what is a Twitter vandalism? I’ve used Twitter for about 10years and for me it hasn’t changed, I still have the same logical timeline with people that I follow and their tweets. What is it that changed that I can’t figure out?
- dmix 3y ago
  The only noticeable thing that's changed is the old blue check mark brigade isn't dominating what gets preference in the algorithm and subsequently what most often goes viral. This group strongly having been in one ideological group has made those in the same group notice they are no longer given automatic popularity points and they don't like it. Social media has always been cancer, some people just want it more preferenced to their sort of cancer by a centralized system. But otherwise I see little evidence it's actually stopped anyone from using it other than people giving heartfelt anecdotes on HN and lots of talk about Mastodon that unsurprisingly died off quick.
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    Instead the new blue check buyers are pushed to the top of replies with either mid responses or ads to their latest crypto pump and dump.
    - cryptoegorophy 3y ago
      Ah, yes, replies are broken, you are right. When I go to one of the big account (ex Elon) then it is impossible to find a good discussion, you have to scroll a lot through blue check marked memes, scams and then you get a chance for something meaningful. Wish it was more like reddit/HN.
  - imtringued 3y ago
    My followers on twitter are 100% bots with a bio that advertises other people's accounts.
gosub100 3y ago
[flagged]
- avmich 3y ago
  I agree that people can be very irrational :) . But yet your leading phrase really deserves justification, smelling conspiracy theory from a mile.
  - gosub100 3y ago
    to me it's clear, if a private business sells a technology service that is being used in a war, the adversary is going to see that action as hostile and use powers within their means to neutralize the threat. I'm not sure you're using the word "conspiracy theory" correctly.
    - avmich 3y ago
      The conspiracy theory part is about this - > if he didn't capitulate on Ukraine then Russia would knock his satellites out of orbit Kinda hard to comment on flagged origin. Do you see why it's a conspiracy theory?
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > to me it's clear, if a private business sells a technology service that is being used in a war, the adversary is going to see that action as hostile and use powers within their means to neutralize the threat. I'm not sure you're using the word "conspiracy theory" correctly. But Ukraine is literally using services from a SAR satellite right now, which is run by a private business. https://www.universetoday.com/157208/ukraine-crowdfunded-a-17m-reconnaissance-sar-satellite/ https://www.universetoday.com/157208/ukraine-crowdfunded-a-1... And yet theres 0 noise or even evidence anyones even thinking of blowing it out of the sky.
- giantrobot 3y ago
  > if he didn't capitulate on Ukraine then Russia would knock his satellites out of orbit This is a farcical statement.
bluescrn 3y ago
Shutting down Twitter would be doing the world a huge favour. He's halfway there.
jryle70 3y ago
> turn off Ukraine starlink service at strategig moments This makes absolutely no sense, yet people keep repeating it TWZ: Do you trust Elon Musk? KB: (Laughs) In what sense? TWZ: There was the discussion over Walter Isaacson’s book excerpt and whether Musk shut off Starlink to prevent a Ukrainian attack on Sevastopol last year, or whether as he claimed he denied a request to provide it. KB: Look, [Starlink] is a private property of a private person. Yes we really very widely use his products and services. The whole of the line of contact talks to each other to some extent using his products and services. The only thing I can say here is that without those services and products it would be a catastrophe. But it is true that he did turn off his products and services over Crimea before. But there's another side to that truth. Everybody's been aware of that. TWZ: So he did turn it off? KB: This specific case everybody's referring to, there was a shutdown of the coverage over Crimea, but it wasn't at that specific moment. That shutdown was for a month. There might have been some specific cases I'm not aware of. But I'm totally sure that throughout the whole first period of the war, there was no coverage at all. TWZ: But did he ever put it on and then shut it off? KB: There have been no problems since it's been turned on over Crimea. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/exclusive-interview-with-ukraines-spy-boss-from-his-dc-hotel-room https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/exclusive-interview-wi...
saturn8601 3y ago
The automotive and space industry has been screaming from the hills about him for years now. Tesla and SpaceX are marvels of what you can do if you have billions to burn and the freedom to do so. The CEO of Ford or any other OEM couldn't spend the kind of dough and make the mistakes that Musk has made. Twitter brought his antics to the forefront in techie circles so software people who didn't listen to said people from other industries finally got the message.

sneak 3y ago

[flagged]

feoren 3y ago
[flagged]
mongol 3y ago
Are you of the opinion that Ukraine is involved with murder and slaughter?
- snovv_crash 3y ago
  AT&T wouldn't be happy with you pulling their cell tower repeaters into a warzone either. Using shared infrastructure for war purposes exposes it to retaliation.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    Except no one is going retaliate against starlink as it would stop _everyone_ from launching satellites.
    - sneak 3y ago
      Humans who subscribe to game theory have gambled against Russia with much higher stakes than these in years past. I would not depend on “nobody can launch satellites” being sufficient deterrent when GTO brinksmanship with the USSR put only Stanislav Petrov between reality and total human extinction. If you believe, as I do, that Ukraine’s ability to export shale gas to the west is a literal existential crisis for Russia as a state in the long term, then it makes sense that they would go to quite significant extents indeed to ensure that that remains impossible, right up to things that would mostly destroy Russian society in the process, tragically.
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        I think the invasion is less about Russia seeing Ukraine as an existential threat and more about Russia seeing Ukraine as rightfully there’s to take. That’s why I don’t think Russia would actually retaliate in any significant way to the use of starlink. They know it’s not an existential threat and that’s why they continue to draw red lines and when they get crossed literally nothing happens.
        sneak 3y ago
        If the first were true, I doubt Russia would be spending so much in the way of resources on simple territorial expansion (with the implicit long term expense of huge resources governing the conquered/occupied territory). The invasion isn’t good ROI for them otherwise, even if it went well, which it does not appear to be. I think the USSR restoration empire building narrative is overblown. Also, if what you say about red lines were true, the US would not be so hesitant to provide lots of advanced aircraft to Ukraine, which they have not done as yet despite this clearly being a full enemy-of-my-enemy proxy war. Signs point to everyone trying to avoid escalation.
        _kbh_ 3y ago
        > I think the USSR restoration empire building narrative is overblown. You should tell that to Russian media who posted this very long very USSR restoration empire building victory article a handful of days into the war. >>https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20... > Also, if what you say about red lines were true, the US would not be so hesitant to provide lots of advanced aircraft to Ukraine, which they have not done as yet despite this clearly being a full enemy-of-my-enemy proxy war. They are literally starting training on the aircraft next month iirc, and will receive them in 4-6 months after that. Nothing happened when all of Russias red lines were crossed, the Americans are merely boiling the frog to avoid escalation. I think Russias red lines are akin to chinas final warning now days, a joke.
- sneak 3y ago
  Yes, obviously, they are at war with Russia. All combatants in all non-proxy wars are involved in the systematic premeditated murder of as many of the Other Guys as possible.
avmich 3y ago
Details matter. There's the war going on. Unfortunately those teenagers in the aggressor's army have to be targeted, otherwise they'll play to the aggressor's hand. Do you like to make decisions like that? You don't need to answer.
_kbh_ 3y ago
> They (the Ukrainians) requested that he re-enable it in that area specifically so that mass murder could be conducted with it, and he declined. (This is an example of the geopolitical power he wields, and it will only increase after Starship.) Couching it in “strategic policy decisions” euphemism doesn’t change the fact that they tried to draft him into a conspiracy to slaughter hundreds of teenage Russian conscripts. A lot of this paragraph is objectively false I don’t think conscripts are the ones that man boats and submarines. Destroying those Russian missile boats and submarines would have taken out a large amount of the ships that where intentionally targeting Ukrainian civilians with cruise missiles.
feoren 3y ago
> They (the Ukrainians) requested that he re-enable it in that area specifically so that mass murder could be conducted with it Let me see if I have this right. We know that the Russian government spends inordinate time and money intentionally spreading false propaganda on the internet. We know Russia loves Musk because he supports their illegal invasion of Ukraine. We see sneak here talking about how the "existing geopolitical engineers" (unspecified; is this a dog whistle?) hate Musk because he's so strong, and how Ukraine is committing "mass murder" for resisting the illegal invasion of their country. And I get flagged for calling him a Russian propagandist? Are we really doing the Emperor's New Clothes thing? Can we not just call a spade a spade here? I get "assume good faith" -- it's a good rule -- but does it really have no limits? We really have to assume good faith in those who are claiming that destroying military targets that are being used by Russia in an illegal invasion of your country is tantamount to mass murder?
- sneak 3y ago
  > We really have to assume good faith in those who are claiming that destroying military targets that are being used by Russia in an illegal invasion of your country is tantamount to mass murder? I reject the concept of “just war” in general in all instances and think all war is mass murder, definitionally. “Military targets” is a euphemism designed to diffuse blame for premeditated mass slaughter of human beings. It’s not something anyone wants to do, feel, or think about, so euphemisms like these are practically essential to our ability to cope with the world. There is another conflict happening simultaneously where you can see the exact same labelling-war playing out. The scores of dead children remain dead, the hospital remains in ruins regardless of whether it was a failed terrorist missile or a solemn and justified defense of a victim of illegal invasion. It takes two to tango. As I said, it’s not popular to be anti-war these days. Humans seem to like retribution and righting of perceived injustice more than they like peace. We still have the death penalty, for instance, a clear violation of our widely agreed-upon standard of human rights. Furthermore, even in your worldview, an American citizen using nominally American-jurisdiction hardware to enable airstrikes in a war zone that has nothing directly to do with America is an unforced escalation in the proxy war unrelated to “illegal invasion” that invites retaliation against Americans and American space-based assets. It’s a fool’s game even if you subscribe only to Realpolitik and don’t care one whit about the lives of enslaved Russian teenagers. > We know Russia loves Musk because he supports their illegal invasion of Ukraine. I have seen precisely nothing to support either of the claims in this sentence. They are speculation, not fact. “If you don’t support me, you de facto support my enemy” is not sound reasoning in war. One may simply be against violence in all forms, which seems much more plausible, given what we know about humans on Earth, especially skeptics like Musk who tend to resist pro-just-war state messaging.

zpeti 3y ago

> decision to destroy Twitter in the process of attempting to make it a safe space for racists Can you back that up, with actual data, and not the politically motivated articles from democrat aligned media? The only specific cases of this I’ve seen was an actual bot network saying the n word a lot when Elon took over, which was obviously a coordinated attack. Other than that, where is this racist hell hole that twitter has become apparently? Where is the proof?

katbyte 3y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/30/elon-musk-twitter-hate-speech/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/30/elon-mu... https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-04-27/hate-speech-twitter-surged-since-elon-musk-takeover https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-04-27... https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/group-flagged-100-racist-hateful-001804603.html https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/group-flagged-100-rac...

sneak 3y ago

> or are very relevant to 99% of the things he is actually spending time and resources on Twitter is irrelevant; he is doing product (read: design for manufacture) design on electric cars, battery systems, rockets, internet access satellites, brain computer interfaces, solar, humanoid autonomous robots, and tunnel boring machines, in approximately that order. Twitter is like 20th on the list, but it’s a great target for narrative-based outrage (“the bullied one gets rich and buys the playground” etc). Also note that if you truly believe in freedom for one-to-many publishing of all legal speech (as I do) then an increase in racist publishing is naturally going to be a consequence of that. Freedom of expression for all is far more important than censoring racists (which doesn’t stop them from being racist or stop the spread of racism anyway).

feoren 3y ago
> the bullied one gets rich and buys the playground What version of Elon Musk are you thinking of here? Read literally anything he says and it's immediately clear that he's always been the bully. He wasn't some underdog who was bullied and pulled himself up by his bootstraps to prove everyone wrong, he's the son of an apartheid emerald mine owner who made some good business bets and has now figured out how to scale up his bullying to a national scale. The already-rich bully bought the playground so that nobody could stop him from bullying everyone even more. > Also note that if you truly believe in freedom for one-to-many publishing of all legal speech (as I do) then an increase in racist publishing is naturally going to be a consequence of that Ah, the old "I'm free to publish racism but you're not free to call me out when I do so". These free-speech "absolutists" always abandon their morals as soon as they get the opportunity to censor someone who is making fun of them for being a douchebag. It's always about wanting a spout-racism-free card, never about the inalienable rights of mankind.
- avmich 3y ago
  I remember works of Musk before 2002. And I don't see where it is > but you're not free to call me out when I do so in the GP post, literally or in meaning. So... I think you're at least exaggerating too much, at least in some places. However I do see your point.

cryptoegorophy 3y ago

Genuinely curious what is a Twitter vandalism? I’ve used Twitter for about 10years and for me it hasn’t changed, I still have the same logical timeline with people that I follow and their tweets. What is it that changed that I can’t figure out?

dmix 3y ago
The only noticeable thing that's changed is the old blue check mark brigade isn't dominating what gets preference in the algorithm and subsequently what most often goes viral. This group strongly having been in one ideological group has made those in the same group notice they are no longer given automatic popularity points and they don't like it. Social media has always been cancer, some people just want it more preferenced to their sort of cancer by a centralized system. But otherwise I see little evidence it's actually stopped anyone from using it other than people giving heartfelt anecdotes on HN and lots of talk about Mastodon that unsurprisingly died off quick.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  Instead the new blue check buyers are pushed to the top of replies with either mid responses or ads to their latest crypto pump and dump.
  - cryptoegorophy 3y ago
    Ah, yes, replies are broken, you are right. When I go to one of the big account (ex Elon) then it is impossible to find a good discussion, you have to scroll a lot through blue check marked memes, scams and then you get a chance for something meaningful. Wish it was more like reddit/HN.
- imtringued 3y ago
  My followers on twitter are 100% bots with a bio that advertises other people's accounts.

gosub100 3y ago

[flagged]

avmich 3y ago
I agree that people can be very irrational :) . But yet your leading phrase really deserves justification, smelling conspiracy theory from a mile.
- gosub100 3y ago
  to me it's clear, if a private business sells a technology service that is being used in a war, the adversary is going to see that action as hostile and use powers within their means to neutralize the threat. I'm not sure you're using the word "conspiracy theory" correctly.
  - avmich 3y ago
    The conspiracy theory part is about this - > if he didn't capitulate on Ukraine then Russia would knock his satellites out of orbit Kinda hard to comment on flagged origin. Do you see why it's a conspiracy theory?
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > to me it's clear, if a private business sells a technology service that is being used in a war, the adversary is going to see that action as hostile and use powers within their means to neutralize the threat. I'm not sure you're using the word "conspiracy theory" correctly. But Ukraine is literally using services from a SAR satellite right now, which is run by a private business. https://www.universetoday.com/157208/ukraine-crowdfunded-a-17m-reconnaissance-sar-satellite/ https://www.universetoday.com/157208/ukraine-crowdfunded-a-1... And yet theres 0 noise or even evidence anyones even thinking of blowing it out of the sky.
giantrobot 3y ago
> if he didn't capitulate on Ukraine then Russia would knock his satellites out of orbit This is a farcical statement.

bluescrn 3y ago

Shutting down Twitter would be doing the world a huge favour. He's halfway there.

jryle70 3y ago

> turn off Ukraine starlink service at strategig moments This makes absolutely no sense, yet people keep repeating it TWZ: Do you trust Elon Musk? KB: (Laughs) In what sense? TWZ: There was the discussion over Walter Isaacson’s book excerpt and whether Musk shut off Starlink to prevent a Ukrainian attack on Sevastopol last year, or whether as he claimed he denied a request to provide it. KB: Look, [Starlink] is a private property of a private person. Yes we really very widely use his products and services. The whole of the line of contact talks to each other to some extent using his products and services. The only thing I can say here is that without those services and products it would be a catastrophe. But it is true that he did turn off his products and services over Crimea before. But there's another side to that truth. Everybody's been aware of that. TWZ: So he did turn it off? KB: This specific case everybody's referring to, there was a shutdown of the coverage over Crimea, but it wasn't at that specific moment. That shutdown was for a month. There might have been some specific cases I'm not aware of. But I'm totally sure that throughout the whole first period of the war, there was no coverage at all. TWZ: But did he ever put it on and then shut it off? KB: There have been no problems since it's been turned on over Crimea. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/exclusive-interview-with-ukraines-spy-boss-from-his-dc-hotel-room https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/exclusive-interview-wi...

saturn8601 3y ago

The automotive and space industry has been screaming from the hills about him for years now. Tesla and SpaceX are marvels of what you can do if you have billions to burn and the freedom to do so. The CEO of Ford or any other OEM couldn't spend the kind of dough and make the mistakes that Musk has made. Twitter brought his antics to the forefront in techie circles so software people who didn't listen to said people from other industries finally got the message.