3 ms·

Hopefully that doesn't factor into their calculus at all. I'd like space programs to be run by practical people who value merit over noise, and I personally don

Hopefully that doesn't factor into their calculus at all. I'd like space programs to be run by practical people who value merit over noise, and I personally don't care if a space transport system is owned by Ronald McDonald as long as it works right. Boeing is a very respectable company or so I've heard. I'm sure their executives watch what they say in public and wear the proper in fashion business suits as expected. I would still rather hop on a spacex vehicle right about now. If you're right and they care about Musk owning Twitter and saying inappropriate shit out loud, I'd say that would reduce my trust in NASA.

Wytwwww 2y ago
> practical people who value merit over noise, How wouldn't that be a part of a perfectly rational risk analysis though? It's like saying (of course on a very different scale) that NASA should be buying rockets from Russian/Chinese/etc. companies/government as long as they offer a good price/quality ratio etc. Which would be an immensely stupid thing to do regardless of how good the actual rockets were. > Twitter and saying inappropriate shit out loud Or possibly more importantly doing inappropriate shit both publicly and not. In general companies that are purely driven by their management's desire to maximize profits/shareholder value/their bonuses are fairly predictable and can be expected to behave rationally under most circumstances. However you might not want to rely too much on company owned by someone (hard to tell which ones are correct so pick any): - willing to burn billions to either to prove some bizarre point - makes impulsive decisions worth billions under the influence of drugs - is willing to spend large amounts of money to manipulate public opinion (and/or undermine democracy and the rule of law) (at least long-term anyway...)
mopenstein 2y ago
If you disagree with someone's political opinion, obviously they aren't fit to do anything of constructive value.
- wwtrv 2y ago
  Why? It would just seem silly not to take include the fact the CEO of the company you are relying on continuously behaves in an erratic and unpredictable manner (and is also trying to undermine democratic institutions but that's besides the point...) into your risk estimates.

Wytwwww 2y ago

> practical people who value merit over noise, How wouldn't that be a part of a perfectly rational risk analysis though? It's like saying (of course on a very different scale) that NASA should be buying rockets from Russian/Chinese/etc. companies/government as long as they offer a good price/quality ratio etc. Which would be an immensely stupid thing to do regardless of how good the actual rockets were. > Twitter and saying inappropriate shit out loud Or possibly more importantly doing inappropriate shit both publicly and not. In general companies that are purely driven by their management's desire to maximize profits/shareholder value/their bonuses are fairly predictable and can be expected to behave rationally under most circumstances. However you might not want to rely too much on company owned by someone (hard to tell which ones are correct so pick any): - willing to burn billions to either to prove some bizarre point - makes impulsive decisions worth billions under the influence of drugs - is willing to spend large amounts of money to manipulate public opinion (and/or undermine democracy and the rule of law) (at least long-term anyway...)

mopenstein 2y ago

If you disagree with someone's political opinion, obviously they aren't fit to do anything of constructive value.

wwtrv 2y ago
Why? It would just seem silly not to take include the fact the CEO of the company you are relying on continuously behaves in an erratic and unpredictable manner (and is also trying to undermine democratic institutions but that's besides the point...) into your risk estimates.