111–120 of 1001 posts
Is is possible this is some sort of "lesson" about the dangers of platforms being able to arbitrarily ban stuff, that will be revealed in a week or two? It almost seems like the exact opposite of everything Musk was implying about a low-censorship platform. It's almost hard to believe that Musk/Twitter are at serious at this point
For those who missed it, his Mastodon is: https://mas.to/@paulg
Possibly malicious enforcement by Twitter staff in light of https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604593057676300288 “Casually sharing occasional links is fine, but no more relentless advertising of competitors for free, which is absurd in the extreme”
Wow. PG did not even post any links, he pretty much just said "I have a Mastodon account." And just like that, banned. Looks like now you're not allowed to so much as mention that you use other websites on the internet besides Twitter.
You are wrong about what PG said. In fact, his Tweet included an explanation of where to find a link to his Mastodon account. Elon has made it clear that these blatant attempts at ban evasion are not allowed.
Elon Musk is going the way of Will Smith in terms of public goodwill and adoration! There's no turning back!
Less Will Smith and more Kanye.
Is is possible this is some sort of "lesson" about the dangers of platforms being able to arbitrarily ban stuff, that will be revealed in a week or two? It almost seems like the exact opposite of everything Musk was implying about a low-censorship platform. It's almost hard to believe that Musk/Twitter are at serious at this point
Here's my explanation as to why,
So far no one seems to have discussed that this choice is the worst possible decision Musk could have made, which is impressive, because it's not often that you can credibly state that. His actions have compelled everyone to ask the question that shouldn't have to be asked.
Is this the man whom you'd like to hand the keys to a global communications network to? > The new birds will host sensors that comprise seven capability layers, to seamlessly perform data communications, track hypersonic and cruise missiles, and provide enhanced battle management, navigation, ground support, and deterrence from space. Lockheed Martin and York Space Systems are each building 10 satellites for the initial data communications transport layer, while L3Harris Technologies and SpaceX will develop four satellites each for an advanced missile tracking layer. The average cost of these satellites is about $14.1 million, per Tournear.
More recently,
> SDA recently awarded nearly $1.8 billion in contracts for 126 satellites for the Transport Layer. By some estimates, about $500 million of that total would be for optical terminals, said Michael Abad-Santos, senior vice president of business development and strategy at BridgeComm, a Denver-based optical communications startup.
SpaceX's cut has been a tiny sliver so far. And so they're seeking to upsell their central customer and they're doing this by playing as nice as possible. SpaceX is packaging interoperability into StarLink and is offering the customer the ability to integrate additional payloads.
> Starlink's inter-satellite laser communications terminal, which is the only communications laser operating at scale in orbit today, can be integrated onto partner satellites to enable incorporation into the Starshield network.
Not only that, the CEO of SpaceX then more or less steps back from his active role, doesn't relinquish his title and starts spending his time launching attacks on some of the customer's sub-departments. Accuses the customer's sub-departments of (relatively unfounded) corruption and creates a political headache for senior leaders at the customer.
The SpaceX CEO's replacement, the SpaceX COO, is very levelheaded and competent. Someone the customer can do business with, but the CEO hasn't given this person any true power or control. The CEO is unwilling to let go.
And even more recently, the bizarre attacks have transformed into erratic behavior and a very public (and embarrassing) meltdown of the CEO.
The customer is watching this and asking themselves the deca-billion dollar question,
Is this the man whom you'd like to hand the keys to a global communications network to?https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2021/04/06/lockheed-...
https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/01/rocket-lab-carves-off-defe...
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/27...
https://spacenews.com/spinlaunch-joins-cadre-of-small-launch...
https://spacenews.com/dod-wants-to-change-how-it-buys-space-...
So most of their eggs are already in this basket, and they're stuck. For now.
Should the customer commit even more resources & critical functionality to this basket?
What if the CEO has an episode and decides to shut off the network impromptu? Who would stop him in the short term? Who has the power to stop him inside the company? No one.
Of course, if the CEO did that, the customer would step in with guns and politely force the CEO to divest from the company and resign. It's not like they haven't done this before,
https://spacenews.com/russian-co-founders-out-of-momentus/
But if it comes to that, it's going to become a political headache. And some damage would have already been done. Maybe even gotten people killed.
The customer doesn't really like unnecessary embarrassments. Their plate is, after all, already full of the many, many things their many, many, many sub-departments do (and screw up).
---
Making predictions is difficult. Especially if they're about the future. But right now, it seems that SpaceX will either undergo a leadership shakeup, or they'll come to an agreement of some sort with the Pentagon. Stasis seems to be unsustainable.