221–230 of 275 posts
I could care less about the attitude or acumen of Jeff or Elon personally. From a business perspective though, it's absolutely bonkers to see Amazon wasting such an immense amount of resources in an attempt to slow the competition down, rather than speed their own up. It's like watching a child flip the monopoly board after realising they can't buy any more properties and remain on top.
Oh come on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
Transportation is not just cars. However, if you can force a break in one area, that frequently opens up opportunities in others. 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,…
There is. And I do consider Tesla to be a driving force for necessary revolutionary change.
I just do not agree, that they are the sole reason we had the change and momentum we are witnessing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're too low for debris to stay up.
This. A thousand time. People need to understand this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The entire planet will be connected soon"... but WHY ???? To allow Facebook (and SV) dream of selling ads all around the world ??? Does the world need it ? Does the world even ask for it ? Sure, I like internet... but only WHERE and WHEN I want to, not anytime and everywhere !
There are hundreds of real world applications that benefit from connectivity. For example Self driving would really benefit from connectivity for deeper learning models to get to level 5. Telemedicine , remote learning all have huge potential with connectivity all around the world. Education in developing countries which suffer from lack of infrastructure can (and already does) benefit from tech driven learning It is…
In that case, how will people in "poor" countries will be able to use it ? Self driving cars ??? Even for the few that can afford it (in the next 10 years), you'll obviously will need a decent road infrastructure... Telemedecine ? Super !!! But is there enough doctor and basic med supply (and cheap enough) ?
So, I guess that the real use will be for internet... In the best case for news and education. But in that case, will it be "cheap enough" for the people in these countries to afford it ? Or will it financially available only to tourists and remote worker ?
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 -…
"Future ozone losses from unregulated rocket launches will eventually exceed ozone losses due to chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which stimulated the 1987 Montreal Protocol banning ozone-depleting chemicals, said Martin Ross, chief study author from The Aerospace Corporation in Los Angeles"
"If left unregulated, rocket launches by the year 2050 could result in more ozone destruction than was ever realized by CFCs."
I think their, and the government's, motivations should be under heavy scrutiny right now. They're both externalising costs. The damage needs to be priced in. I think there's a lot of untapped research to be explored for alternative ways of lobbing things in to orbit.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331153014.h...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The entire planet will be connected soon"... but WHY ???? To allow Facebook (and SV) dream of selling ads all around the world ??? Does the world need it ? Does the world even ask for it ? Sure, I like internet... but only WHERE and WHEN I want to, not anytime and everywhere !
> Does the world need it ? Does the world even ask for it ? Yes > Sure, I like internet... but only WHERE and WHEN I want to, not anytime and everywhere ! Turn of your phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, two billionaires fighting over who gets to pollute the Earth's orbit and send rich people into space for fun while destroying the environment.
Elon's (public) motive about colonizing other planets has never been about rich people having fun. It's an existential necessity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like, well, land — if somebody builds on it, nobody else would be able to. They'd need to build nearby, or elsewhere. It's not like Starlink is,going to exhaust all viable orbits.
It's not like Starlink is,going to exhaust all viable orbits. No, but it is worth noting that there are about 7000 satellites in orbit right now, of which a little over half are actually operational[1]. Starlink intends to increase that number 10 fold by launching 30,000 of their own. It will have a significant impact on which orbits are available, it will cause extra work for everyone who operates in space, and (in…
This.
Also, I would expect that there should be some kind of worldwide organism supervising this nowadays, not just the US FCC. I mean, LEO is a whole Earth thing, not just one nation's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree: space is a SHARED place... why should some US corp. be able to pollute it ????? And why should US citizen ONLY have something to say about it ???? I can understand that the US may decide what is above its territory, but I surely dont want to MY french nights with Musk or Bezos satellites... and moreover without my consent !
Satellites aren't pollution. They have a 10 year service life then fall back down to Earth. Do you also complain about buildings ruining your french nights? Or billboards? Or traffic noise? Should we ban all automobiles and buildings and outdoor lighting? Should we ban all combustion engines to ensure there's no amount of smog in the air as well? Satellites are extremely far down on the list of public nuisances and d…
And even more: some are against "renewal energy" like wind fields because of both!
Satellites are down on public nuisance BECAUSE there's not a lot of it ! But how will it rate when there will be 100 times more ? And then, we will have to live with it for 10 years maybe... and surely more (because you know: once it's done, it's hard to lose the investment)
Just to be clear: maybe it's not the worst idea... but we should ALL talk about it, and not only the US people
I could care less about the attitude or acumen of Jeff or Elon personally. From a business perspective though, it's absolutely bonkers to see Amazon wasting such an immense amount of resources in an attempt to slow the competition down, rather than speed their own up. It's like watching a child flip the monopoly board after realising they can't buy any more properties and remain on top.
Its not bonkers if you have a ruthless win at all costs strategy. You dont become the richest man in the world by being nice.