Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

Post by ooterness » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:32 PM UTC

Geee wrote: post #455

swingboy wrote: post #226

Apologies for the naivety, but, why is SpaceX valued so high? Starlink? Are rockets really a lucrative business? Don’t get me wrong, being able to send objects up into orbit is cool, but is it $1.8T cool?

Starship makes space access 1000x cheaper than before, with cost-to-orbit under $10 / kilogram. Also much larger payloads become possible. That's an insane economic unlock, because space contains unlimited amounts of resources and energy. Space-based manufacturing, building space hotels, mining asteroids etc. becomes viable. Larger satellites and probes for commercial or scientific use becomes possible. All this migh…

Post by nradov » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:37 PM UTC

Gomotono wrote: post #417

dijit wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we have about 30 years of catching up to do, better defense spending: 1) Saves our lives in Europe, by having access to better training and force multipliers. 2) Seeps into the economies of every country in the union through research spending. Defence is unambiguously a good thing, it becomes a problem if you put an expansionist cunthead at the helm of it.

We can discuss if a society should have a certain amount of GDP invested into defense and i'm not necessarily against it. I would think educating people properly is good, I also think the swizz model is good in sense of everyone learns to handle a gun and can have it at home (as long as high security standards are set and its taken very serious). It could be used as a tool to strengthen societies responsibility, comm…

Post by nradov » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:41 PM UTC

Gomotono wrote: post #435

dijit wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's less true than the media would have you believe. We're undergoing a lot of propaganda about how effective Ukraine is against Russia, but that's despite most European countries practically immolating their own stockpiles of defence capability, and they're doing so somewhat unoformily (while Russia does everything they can to weaken the European homogeneity; see their funding into brexit and anti-EU seni…

Its not propaganda when you can see it. We know what Putin showes in his Military parade and we know the stockpile of tanks they have and had due to satelite images. My statement still stands, we do not need to increase defence spending to beat russia. You said something different though: "We need to increase defence spending to have as little as human risk as possible". I wouldn't call it naive, more optimistic. And…

Post by tokai » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:51 PM UTC

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #400

myk9001 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you're saying the US (300+ mln, #1 military) never actually requested to deploy them and Denmark (5 mln) never actually refused. But because you think an agreement is unlikely, it's straight to annexation by force. Do I have that right?

No, I'm saying that new military installations would be unlikely to be agreed due to domestic political sentiment. Pituffik was certainly agreed by both sides, but that was a long time ago. (I'm not Danish or Greenlandic, so this is just my reading of the situation.)

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 30, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

i_cannot_hack wrote: post #329

tordrt wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fossil fuel part doesn't seem like a rational decision to me. Why are we pretending that fossil fuels dont provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that its horrible to invest or support building out any fossil fuel production whatsoever. Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to the gulfs and Russia…

Nobody is pretending fossil fuels are not producing value, if they did not nobody would bother using them in the first place. The argument is about the fact that they produce relatively short term value for the person using them, at the externalized expense of polluting the atmosphere and causing long-term environmental instability and destruction for every subsequent generation for the foreseeable future. Coastal re…