Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#31

Post by toomuchtodo »

augustt wrote: post #27
toomuchtodo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually quite enjoy when he’s exuberant, makes it more interesting. Boring leaders are boring. In this example, Tesla and SpaceX have created at least tens of thousands of jobs in the state (Tesla indicates 50k+ if you include supplier related jobs), and California might be cutting off its nose to spite its face over $600k. That’s a very California thing to do, and if Musk loses his shit over that, it’d be a very…

That kind of thinking got us #45. Some things are more important than entertainment.

Climate change is very important. Extinction level important. Don’t like the horse, run a better horse. This horse is doing pretty well despite the occasional tirade or Twitter meltdown. I can live with that.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#32

Post by dgzl »

new_realist wrote: post #2

Contrary to what Tesla told Alameda County, the Tesla factory is (illegally) in full production, producing cars sitting on Pier 80 for export to Europe and China. https://tslaq.org/letter-from-the-saf-to-alameda-county-offi... That’s not an essential activity; it’s just greedily risking California lives to serve luxury car consumers abroad. I’m not surprised that California is none too happy with Elon.

Aka, offering their employees stable work and pay.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#33

Post by throwaway45783 »

new_realist wrote: post #22
throwaway45783 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a whataboutism. And actually driving is essential if you live on the west coast. And we should be doing everything we can to make it so that it's not essential, but it turns out that's a deeply political issue.

These cars are not being made for California, but for China. Tesla has adequate inventory for sale in the US.

The comment I was responding to wasn't actually about the cars being made, but just about driving in general.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#34

Post by dgzl »

TylerE wrote: post #28
koolba wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The illegal act is arbitrarily shutting down the ability to earn a livelihood. When these cases make their way through the courts I’m thinking they’re going to side with the Musks, not the Newsoms.

I would hardly call it an arbitrary shutdown. Pandemic, ya know.

Constitutional rights, ya know.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#35

Post by miguelmota »

msandford wrote: post #4
new_realist wrote: post #2

Contrary to what Tesla told Alameda County, the Tesla factory is (illegally) in full production, producing cars sitting on Pier 80 for export to Europe and China. https://tslaq.org/letter-from-the-saf-to-alameda-county-offi... That’s not an essential activity; it’s just greedily risking California lives to serve luxury car consumers abroad. I’m not surprised that California is none too happy with Elon.

So are we going to ban all cars now? Average automobile deaths are ~30k per year. They're non essential. Let's all stop driving. "do whatever it takes to save lives"

Your argument is a logical fallacy. Car accidents are not contagious.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#36

Post by KittenInABox »

protomyth wrote: post #30
new_realist wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COVID deaths are near 90K in the US (so far).

[deleted - I didn't mean anything like the reply]

Do you have sources that suicide is being counted as covid deaths?

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#37

Post by dgzl »

dimator wrote: post #10
briandear wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it greedy for a worker to want to feed their family? Serious question.

By that rationale, no one should have been forced to stay home. Everyone's got mouths to feed.

Using the other rationale, driving puts others at risk and we shouldn't be in the road until driving is perfectly safe.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#38

Post by dgzl »

all2well wrote: post #26
burrows wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, you’re crazy. Me: Who produces the food if no one works? You: Food producers are essential workers so food production is unaffected. Me: How do people outside the food industry pay for the food without working? You: They don’t. The government taxes future productive efforts of other people to buy the food. Me: But I don’t want the government to take my future dollars and give them away. You: Too bad chump.

A better answer, from your perspective, would probably be that private charity and food banks deal with this problem already, right?

They are certainly more effective than Government handouts.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#39

Post by sandworm101 »

koolba wrote: post #7
new_realist wrote: post #2

Contrary to what Tesla told Alameda County, the Tesla factory is (illegally) in full production, producing cars sitting on Pier 80 for export to Europe and China. https://tslaq.org/letter-from-the-saf-to-alameda-county-offi... That’s not an essential activity; it’s just greedily risking California lives to serve luxury car consumers abroad. I’m not surprised that California is none too happy with Elon.

The illegal act is arbitrarily shutting down the ability to earn a livelihood. When these cases make their way through the courts I’m thinking they’re going to side with the Musks, not the Newsoms.

>> The illegal act is arbitrarily shutting down the ability to earn a livelihood.

That would be illegal, but isn't what is happening. An outright ban on all work would certainly be unconstitutional (life liberty, pursuit of happiness etc). But temporarily shutting down a business because of a virus, safety issues, lack of insurance, pollution worries, failure to pay taxes, inadequate lighting in the parking lots, to preserve a crime scene, or because the road out front needs work ... local governments close businesses all the time. So long as the reason is reasonable and the shutdown is temporary the courts will find it acceptable.

If you want to win in court, disobeying a law is generally not the best path. Musk isn't Rosa Parks. Musk doesn't have to be arrested before he can challenge the law in court. By acting like this he isn't helping his case(s). I'm sure his lawyers are pulling their hair out.

Politically, Musk is shooting himself in the foot. What if the local health department says that automotive factory workers must stay 10feet away from each other, all get respirators, get tested twice a day, and must take a month of covid safety training? Those will all be "reasonable" in the eyes of any court. That they would also kill any chance of Tesla turning a profit is political consequence of disobeying previous health orders.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#40

Post by dgzl »

rajangdavis wrote: post #25
msandford wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are we going to ban all cars now? Average automobile deaths are ~30k per year. They're non essential. Let's all stop driving. "do whatever it takes to save lives"

That's not taking the argument in good faith. Car accidents aren't infectious and furthermore, we don't see 30k deaths in the span of 2 months. I think Musk could have fared better working with the government to make it feasible to work in the Tesla factories and limit exposure and provide a model for other businesses. Instead he just went ahead and has no guarantee that his employees won't be exposed.

Road rage is infectious but I'm not sure why it matters anyway.
Post reply on HN