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

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#81

Post by proc0 »

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.

You confuse greed with reasonable assessment people will suffer in proportion to how long the economy is shutdown.

What is worse: A chance of dying from an illness that is inevitably spreading to all, or... An inevitable loss of jobs that will ensure otherwise healthy people dying from not being able to afford food or a place to live anymore?

Not to mention there is room for more patients in hospitals around where Tesla is at.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#82

Post by masonic »

koheripbal wrote: post #76
pkaye wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the compromise is to let they people who willing to take the risk do the jobs with high chance of exposure.

The compromise is allowing people and companies to make their own choices about their own well-being and livelihood.

  allowing people and companies to make their own choices about their own well-being
... Like Mary Mallon did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#83

Post by alphabettsy »

koheripbal wrote: post #63
pkaye wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Alameda County and our new cases have not been dropping for 6+ weeks. Just fluctuating up and down. Yesterday it spiked up a bit though I don't attribute it to Tesla. We haven't really run out of hospital capacity but I wonder where this will lead if the Tesla workers start getting sick. A lot of them also commute in from far off as Modesto for the work.

You can't shut down the entire economy for a disease with a death rate well under 1%. You need to protect and isolate the vulnerable until a vaccine is ready, and get back to living.

There’s no definitive evidence the death rate is well under 1%.

The only definitive evidence that exist because of actual test has a death rate at nearly 10% which we also know isn’t incorrect.

Regardless 1% is high, as well as the hospitalization rate seems to be quite high and for some reason a lot of people are only focused on death when citing these statistics.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#84

Post by toomuchtodo »

jackguy wrote: post #68
toomuchtodo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The horse that just fired the IG for investigating his friend Pompeo?

No, the rocket electric car one.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#85

Post by Fjolsvith »

alphabettsy wrote: post #83
koheripbal wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't shut down the entire economy for a disease with a death rate well under 1%. You need to protect and isolate the vulnerable until a vaccine is ready, and get back to living.

There’s no definitive evidence the death rate is well under 1%. The only definitive evidence that exist because of actual test has a death rate at nearly 10% which we also know isn’t incorrect. Regardless 1% is high, as well as the hospitalization rate seems to be quite high and for some reason a lot of people are only focused on death when citing these statistics.

COVID-19 death rates are very likely exaggerated:

Sen. Scott Jensen, R-Minn., a physician in Minnesota posted on his Facebook page on April 15, "Hospital administrators might well want to see COVID-19 attached to a discharge summary or a death certificate. Why? Because if it's a straightforward, garden-variety pneumonia that a person is admitted to the hospital for – if they're Medicare – typically, the diagnosis-related group lump sum payment would be $5,000. But if it's COVID-19 pneumonia, then it's $13,000, and if that COVID-19 pneumonia patient ends up on a ventilator, it goes up to $39,000."

...

PolitiFact reporter Tom Kertscher wrote, "The dollar amounts Jensen cited are roughly what we found in an analysis published April 7 by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a leading source of health information." [1]

1. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fac...

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#86

Post by arcticbull »

dgzl wrote: post #57
arcticbull wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it violates the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness in the same way forbidding the possession of nuclear warheads violates the 2nd amendment: kinda, but for the greater good.

You'd be surprised the number of people who believe nuclear warheads are protected by the second amendment. Either way, that's a fair compromise and this is not.

So it's okay in your opinion to curtail some constitutional rights when it makes sense to you, but not others? That's a pretty inconsistent position.

The argument being made for warheads is the same as that for staying inside: not doing so would pose an outsize danger to others. Whether I agree or disagree isn't the point personally, I'm arguing that the curtailments follow from the same basic premise and are likely legal. We'll see how it plays out.

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#88

Post by testbot123 »

dgzl wrote: post #37
dimator wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How about "drunk driving puts others at risk and you shouldn't drive a car when you're drunk."

Re: California officials reject subsidies for SpaceX over Tesla spat

#89

Post by testbot123 »

dgzl wrote: post #49
throwaway45783 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a constitutional right, or just a matter of general individual liberty? Because if it's a matter of individual liberty, I think we can sacrifice some of those for the time being for the greater good of society.

I would say locking down the country violates our rights to liberty and also the pursuit of happiness.

Do I have the right to not be killed by people who are illegally disregarding stay-at-home orders? Doesn't someone killing me violate my right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Post reply on HN