181–190 of 275 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, seeking the limits of the law. When a human does it, we typically call them an asshole. However, when a company does it, it's totally fine.
It is almost like the primary value provided by a company is of being a social obfuscation layer to avoid moral responsibilities that would be obvious if it was replaced with an individual.
A veil, if you will
Without getting too spaced-out with the the Bezos-Musk dynamics, I personally hate the idea of having private companies getting on the SpaceX bandwagon and clogging up outer space with thousands of satellites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take the eccentric billionaire actually tackling real issues and making actual headway. People here are too narrow minded and have quarter to quarter short term memory disorder, seeming to forget that Musk and Tesla are the sole reason we have had the progress and momentum towards actually greener technologies, not simply greenwashed corporate nonsense that was churned out year after year without any was actual…
Bezos making the world greener? His big trucks deliver a few packages daily to one, or two, households. Those electric fleet commercials seem like PR BS. If I ever do see an electric truck barreling up my street; I bet they will be heavily subsidized by our tax money in the form of credit. What is he doing that's green? That cowboy hat was pure ego, and vanity. Two bald men on a carnival ride might not be good for hi…
20 people in your neighborhood take a 2.5 ton car to the store and back, or one truck drives around multiple neighborhoods and drops off packages. I don't think delivery is a clear cut loss
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they get pulled down by the combination of atmosphere and gravity. As you pointed out, gravity alone is not sufficient. But also, if there's only an atmosphere but no gravity, they don't get pulled down.
If there's no gravity, they don't orbit. If they orbit with gravity but with no atmosphere, they stay orbiting indefinitely.
Not quite true. For example quite a few orbits around the moon are unstable and you will end up crashing into the surface. This is due to essentially all celestial objects not being spherical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But cars are only responsible for a tiny fraction of CO2 Road vehicles account for 5% of global CO2 emissions. That's not a tiny fraction IMO. It's not huge, but road transportation alone (not counting shipping) account for 5X as much CO2 aviation. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport
In the context of the statement, ("sole reason..") I call it tiny. I mean cars are very visible, so any movement there helps with the public image that things can change. But he still was only one player in a comparitivly small segment, when green technology is so much bigger than just "cars". And "green cars" was and is much more than just "Tesla".
And such is the case here. But Tesla is not just going after cars. They’re going after the whole energy production/transportation complex, which really is the biggest single contributor to greenhouse gases.
It just so happens that cars was the weak point that could be most easily attacked, and Tesla went for it. But there is much more on the table than just cars.
This seems on par with the process - SpaceX submits a proposal that is open for public scrutiny, and Amazon, which has the incentives to do so, submits feedback on that proposal. Whether the feedback/concerns from Amazon are warranted, that’s up to the FCC to decide. If they decide incorrectly, that’s when I’d start to bring the torches.
You fail to make a distinction between following a process and abusing a process. Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's clear to everyone and their mothers that Amazon is abusing the process. Find me one comment that says "yeah, Amazon is totally right about that and SpaceX should not get the permits they are asking for". Abusing a process warrants a bit different response than "oh well, the rules can be abused…
It's not clear to me. I'm actually quite worried about SpaceX's increasing presence in space put simply because Musk has shown very little care for risk - especially if it's to someone other than him (e.g. testing "self-driving" on public roads, showing exceedingly lack of QA and attention to detail in most products, and generally bringing the "move fast and break things" mantra into applications that are life and death).
For example, SpaceX Starlink satelites (just Starlink) account for over half of close encounters and are expected to account for 90% of close encounters in the future. [1] It only takes one major screw up there to completely ground the human race for the foreseeable future.
So how much do you trust SpaceX to not screw over humanity by setting of a Kessler effect? I don't at all, so in that regard I'm all for SpaceX facing the highest level of scrutiny in all things because I do not consider them a trustworthy enterprise.
---
[1] https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-collision-al...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You fail to make a distinction between following a process and abusing a process. Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's clear to everyone and their mothers that Amazon is abusing the process. Find me one comment that says "yeah, Amazon is totally right about that and SpaceX should not get the permits they are asking for". Abusing a process warrants a bit different response than "oh well, the rules can be abused…
> Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's not clear to me. I'm actually quite worried about SpaceX's increasing presence in space put simply because Musk has shown very little care for risk - especially if it's to someone other than him (e.g. testing "self-driving" on public roads, showing exceedingly lack of QA and attention to detail in most products, and generally bringing the "move fast and break things" mant…
This seems on par with the process - SpaceX submits a proposal that is open for public scrutiny, and Amazon, which has the incentives to do so, submits feedback on that proposal. Whether the feedback/concerns from Amazon are warranted, that’s up to the FCC to decide. If they decide incorrectly, that’s when I’d start to bring the torches.
You fail to make a distinction between following a process and abusing a process. Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's clear to everyone and their mothers that Amazon is abusing the process. Find me one comment that says "yeah, Amazon is totally right about that and SpaceX should not get the permits they are asking for". Abusing a process warrants a bit different response than "oh well, the rules can be abused…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You fail to make a distinction between following a process and abusing a process. Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's clear to everyone and their mothers that Amazon is abusing the process. Find me one comment that says "yeah, Amazon is totally right about that and SpaceX should not get the permits they are asking for". Abusing a process warrants a bit different response than "oh well, the rules can be abused…
> Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's not clear to me. I'm actually quite worried about SpaceX's increasing presence in space put simply because Musk has shown very little care for risk - especially if it's to someone other than him (e.g. testing "self-driving" on public roads, showing exceedingly lack of QA and attention to detail in most products, and generally bringing the "move fast and break things" mant…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take the eccentric billionaire actually tackling real issues and making actual headway. People here are too narrow minded and have quarter to quarter short term memory disorder, seeming to forget that Musk and Tesla are the sole reason we have had the progress and momentum towards actually greener technologies, not simply greenwashed corporate nonsense that was churned out year after year without any was actual…
"forget that Musk and Tesla are the sole reason we have had the progress and momentum towards actually greener technologies" There are many things, that come to my mind with this statement, but I will just say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Because yes, he did gave momentum to the conservative car makers to get them to move their asses. But cars are only responsible for a tiny fraction of CO2 -…
Direct emissions are in single digits, but what about decades of maintenance that requires oil changes, parts production, transmission changes, etc?
An EV is much simpler than an ICE vehicle, has lesser metal and requires fewer moving parts.
Metal production is highly carbon intensive. Not to mention recycling and reusing.