Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance' • Hacker News Board

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#401

Post by narrator » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:36 PM UTC

SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #302

Hendrikto wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the Musk reality distortion field. The claim is that all data centers will move into space, and that SpaceX will completely own that market.

The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock significantly. The actual distortion field is around Starlink. Which is the main product and the only one that's (nominally) profitable. It's the one all the hype centers around. xAI is barely even notable in the AI space. This also makes it possible to judge t…

Starship is going to make whole entire industries viable that were not viable previously. It might even take a significant chunk of air freight which is going to be a big deal with rising oil prices.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#402

Post by bryanlarsen » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:38 PM UTC

tristanj wrote: post #316

SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock significantly. The actual distortion field is around Starlink. Which is the main product and the only one that's (nominally) profitable. It's the one all the hype centers around. xAI is barely even notable in the AI space. This also makes it possible to judge t…

I find it amusing to read comments like these, because they remind me of the massive awareness gap between people who understand SpaceX's product line, and those who don't. In your world, you only see and interpret SpaceX's existing products. You then see SpaceX's eye-watering valuation, and then are confused where this comes from. Meanwhile, people who understand SpaceX's product line, and the implications these pro…

Rocket launch ex-Starlink is a small $N-billion market; a few dozen flights at $50M per flight. Starship is revolutionary and I can easily believe that it will expand the market by a remarkable order of magnitude. Multiple tens of billions. How does that justify a valuation over $1T?

Starlink Mobile is more significant, but it's still unlikely to double Starlink revenue -- most mobile traffic will always be transited by local cell phone towers.

P.S. I think somebody is going to make a lot of money from Starship. The money in space is not from launch but from the services it enables. Starlink >> Falcon9. But I don't think SpaceX is going to be the ones to find the next Starlink. It's much more likely to be a third party who launches on multiple providers to keep costs down.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#403

Post by Gomotono » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:39 PM UTC

sgt wrote: post #290

Hendrikto wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the Musk reality distortion field. The claim is that all data centers will move into space, and that SpaceX will completely own that market.

Where did they say that all data centers will move into space? I thought the claim was that it's going to be more and more feasible and profitable to have DC's in space.

Elon Musk is saying this together with Dyson Sphere and Mars colonisation.

In his FCC filling he also mentions DCs:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-113A1.pdf

And yes its absolutly wild.

His Scifi ideas are probably a min of 100 years too early.

And while he doesn't even need his own compute (renting out colossus 1 and 2), he thinks we will send server racks full of expensive hardware into space in no time.

Why?

Because his Space-X Trillion evaluation doesn't make sense if he doens't has payload for Starship.

So how much payload do we send to space? Actually not that much, starlink itself is the biggest change by far. So he builds Starship which he needs for starlink v3 but what then? Yeah Datacenter in space...

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#404

Post by moogly » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:41 PM UTC

tordrt wrote: post #379

i_cannot_hack wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think a lot of people actually dont realize the value it gives humanity. Lots of people think we would have been better of in an alternate universe where we never discovered oil & gas. How is this short therm value for people using them? They are drivers of the most fundamental stuff in our day to day lives. Either enabling billions of people cheap efficient transport, efficient agriculture producing cheap food, ch…

> Lots of people think we would have been better of in an alternate universe where we never discovered oil & gas.

Who? Other than strawmen, I mean.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#405

Post by dijit » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:42 PM UTC

Gomotono wrote: post #385

apexalpha wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defensive weapons are very much needed in Europe…

No they are not. The amount of military spending europe has, is already higher than russia. Russia clearly showed how incapable they are, they are not even able to present modern war technology at their freedom parade. And china we don't fight china.

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.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#406

Post by copx » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:43 PM UTC

jiggawatts wrote: post #235

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX has the potential to be the most valuable company ever if the space economy expands. Starlink will be a tiny puzzle piece by then. How is this even debatable.

The "space economy" is not yet a certainty, other than in the mind of science fiction fans. (Unsurprisingly, hard to reach irradiated rocks of undifferentiated boring minerals in a cold vacuum are of negligible value to humans here on Earth.) Even if the Star Trek utopian future materialises, it is very likely to be a long time from now . 1. SpaceX has competitors. Most are making reusable rockets. 2. SpaceX has no m…

>The "space economy" is not yet a certainty

True, and that's exactly the reason why people want to buy this stock now.

If future returns were already (almost) certain, they would have been priced in and you couldn't make any money with this stock.

This is a classic high risk / high reward stock. IF the space economy takes off you might 10X your investment. If it doesn't, you might lose most of it.

Rich people (who own most of the stock market) can afford to make such high risk bets, because they can afford to lose the money and thus many will make that bet.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#407

Post by dijit » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:44 PM UTC

OtherShrezzing wrote: post #386

noodlesUK wrote: post #371

I think European countries need to get serious about investing money locally. The UK is a particularly egregious example but it’s taking begging and pleading with the mansion house accord to even convince pensions to try to invest in the UK economy. Every country should make a portion of local (at least within Europe) investment a prerequisite for whatever favourable tax treatment pensions and similar products get. S…

I partially agree, but if my private pension needed to invest into the underperforming FTSE250 by law, I’d just opt out of that system and put my savings into a US/Emerging-markets index myself. I’m not patriotic enough to spaff my compound interest opportunity on a bunch of dying tobacco, oil, & mineral extraction companies to put any of it to work in the FTSE250.

A lot of those investments are self-fulfilling though.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#408

Post by pqtyw » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:45 PM UTC

sgt wrote: post #285

petterroea wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Norway the oil fund are actively arguing against boycotting these kinds of companies saying, and I paraphrase: "but our job is to earn money and we can't do that if you hippies keep standing in the way with your morals" Good to see it isn't necessarily the case.

[flagged]

Based on any rational indicator SpaceX is extremely overvalued though.

Of course it does not mean that its stock price will crash after the IPO, stock markets in the US especially are not exactly behaving rationally.

> Norway is the 5th largest weapons and defense manufacturer

What's the issue with that? Unilateral disarmament would be an exceptionally stupid idea for any country and then you do need need someone to produce weapons for your military and those of your allies.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#409

Post by youngNed » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:46 PM UTC

sgt wrote: post #330

notarobot123 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered, do people who complain about virtue signaling just simply not believe in the concept of virtues or integrity at all? Human nature is pure vice mediated by violence and contract law, that's it. I get the cynicism about performative acts vs. authentic values but where's the line? Putting your money where your mouth is has to count for something.

You have a point. I'd hope most of us actually do care about virtues and integrity, but 90% of the time it doesn't need to be said. It's how we were raised. Now, true virtue signalling is saying X to change the perception but yet doing 100 evil things in the background.

> Now, true virtue signalling is saying X to change the perception but yet doing 100 evil things in the background.

No, thats hypocrisy.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#410

Post by SlinkyOnStairs » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:46 PM UTC

tristanj wrote: post #316

SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock significantly. The actual distortion field is around Starlink. Which is the main product and the only one that's (nominally) profitable. It's the one all the hype centers around. xAI is barely even notable in the AI space. This also makes it possible to judge t…

I find it amusing to read comments like these, because they remind me of the massive awareness gap between people who understand SpaceX's product line, and those who don't. In your world, you only see and interpret SpaceX's existing products. You then see SpaceX's eye-watering valuation, and then are confused where this comes from. Meanwhile, people who understand SpaceX's product line, and the implications these pro…

"You just don't understand bro" has been the trite handwaving of criticism for a over decade now. It already wore out when the bitcoin bros kept saying it to all their critics.

> I can tell you are in the unaware group, since you don't mention nor analyze two of SpaceX's world-changing products (Starship and Starlink Mobile).

Just because I did not mention Starship by name does not mean it's not in the reply.

And Starlink Mobile is still an ISP. "It's worth a trillion dollars because it's mobile!" Haven't heard that one since the Dotcom bubble.

But more to the point:

> Meanwhile, people who understand SpaceX's product line, and the implications these products in five or ten years, can analyze the situation more accurately.

They are looking 10 years forwards. I am looking 10 years back.

This exact same "just you wait, in 5 years there'll be a miracle technology that generates infinite profit" rhetoric has been used for those 10 years.

Still waiting on the miracle self-driving that was supposed to justify Tesla's $1.6 trillion.