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

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#491

Post by nradov » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:10 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #401

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…

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.

Is that supposed to be a joke? There is no plausible scenario where SpaceX gets any significant fraction of the air freight market. Even under the most optimistic scenario the costs for suborbital launch are much higher than regular airplanes.

In a few decades there might be a small market for carrying passengers long distances really fast. Initially for the military to insert special ops troops in a crisis, and eventually maybe for wealthy consumers after safety improves.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#492

Post by thg » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:12 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #401

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…

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.

> Starship is going to make whole entire industries viable that were not viable previously.

Starship is a complete and utter failure, as you can read about here, among other places: https://www.planetearthandbeyond.co/p/starship-is-going-nowh...

> It might even take a significant chunk of air freight which is going to be a big deal with rising oil prices.

By being several magnitudes more expensive than an airplane would ever be?

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#493

Post by Gomotono » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:22 PM UTC

derektank wrote: post #458

Gomotono wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla is not and never has been a good investment. Its a gamble. The current evaluation of Tesla is still higher than real car companies + robot companies + robot taxi companies.

Never is a strong statement. Tesla’s price to sales ratio wasn’t absurd prior to 2020.

If you want to make sure to be very very specific, yeah for sure Tesla had a timeframe were the ratio was not bonkers.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#494

Post by amarant » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:23 PM UTC

frm88 wrote: post #241

amarant wrote: post #93

Any chance of bypassing the paywall? Does someone have a archive link perhaps?

Here you go: https://archive.ph/dsVfR

Thanks! Looks like they have a rather reasonable take. I agree that spaceX has some very impressive capabilities and there is no doubt that their engineering talent is the best in the world in their field, but 1.8T is indeed a ridiculously high number!

I interpret their management risk analysis as being more about the buss factor of 1 than it being about not liking musk, which I also think is a reasonable take.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#495

Post by Gomotono » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:27 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #451

Gomotono wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In nominal terms "we outspend them" is true, but it misses the forest for the trees. Nominal spend is the wrong yardstick when one side builds at home for a fraction of the cost; Russian labour, steel and energy are far cheaper at the point of use, which is why PPP estimates put their real military output roughly level with the whole of Europe combined. And spend isn't the binding constraint anyway: it's production.…

Russia is 3x poorer than germany and has half of our GDP.

Russia has power because of their nuclear arsenal which is unclear how well it is maintained.

But no we can fill up and build faster and better than russia.

And the war against ukraine is hurting russia now for over 1000 days. Russia even has to go so far to reduce mobile and internet. This alone hurts Russia as a whole.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#496

Post by bko » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:31 PM UTC

jghn wrote: post #479

bko wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rules changed because it's unprecedented. It's not complicated. If your job is to "track the market" and there is this company that is worth $1+ trillion, you're not doing your job if you don't have exposure to this company. Just be honest with yourself. The only reason you and others have an issue is because of politics. You don't like Musk for whatever reason and now you're very opinionated about the internal w…

Ignoring the moral questions, the issue is that the old waiting period had a purpose. The market *isn't* getting an opportunity to decide here. There's a concern that these are a glorified pump & dump where initial investors extract all the value via the IPO and then the price craters once it's on the open market. It'd be nice to give the market a period of time to figure out what it *really* values these companies.

> moral questions

Do you hear yourself? This is about index inclusion.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#497

Post by jghn » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:33 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #496

jghn wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the moral questions, the issue is that the old waiting period had a purpose. The market *isn't* getting an opportunity to decide here. There's a concern that these are a glorified pump & dump where initial investors extract all the value via the IPO and then the price craters once it's on the open market. It'd be nice to give the market a period of time to figure out what it *really* values these companies.

> moral questions Do you hear yourself? This is about index inclusion.

I stated that because most of this thread is on that topic and specifically didn't want it involved for this. I'm sorry if you're too biased on the topic to take that into account.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#498

Post by Gomotono » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:37 PM UTC

tordrt wrote: post #438

Gomotono wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people didn't care that oil and gas is breaking our planet 100 years ago. Or didn't knew and capitalism made the people in power very very rich very fast. At that time we still lived and heated normally. For sure the brits destroyed a lot of their trees but you know? They could. What do you think would have happened if we had a small population collaps at that time and HAD to consume sustainable? We would be…

The Industrial Revolution started in 1760-1800 and was driven by coal, completely replacing wood as the primary industrial fuel. We almost exterminated whales and deforested the entirety of Europe before discovering fossil fuels, which both bounced back after. The first EV an the first solar panel are second order effects and only possible because of the industrial revolution driving massive human innovation and grow…

The revolution could still have happened differently and slower.

I didn't say it would have been possible without ANY coal but you do understand that the amount of co2 we put into our atmosphere is not from 1760? All of that big huge co2 output happend in the last 100 year...

Solar plus batterie is currently winning. In germany the problem again is NOT the economy, its literaly the energy provider companies being slow as hell. This critisim is circling the media now for the last few years.

China is doing hydro, gas and coal because China is gigantic and they don't mind that coal still exists and we do not know yet at all how their end energy mix will look like but they are pushing very hard for renewable.

No as i told you, a lot of people around me literlaly don't want to do reneable for the reasons i told you. A L'ot of people DO NOT CARE about climate change.

Germany is trying to push for heatpumps in the old government, the new/current one is paddling back, AGAIN. This is happening under our noses. The discussion of the new heating law (from the prev government) created A LOT of controversy.

The main reason why the renewable energy transformation is happening at the current speed and not in the possible speed, is people not math. not economy.

We have protests against wind mills because they 'look ugly'. My neighbours hate my solar panel on the balcony but can't say something against it because the old government created a law for this.

Work collegues of mine hate EVs and don't want to switch over but my company only allows EVs since this year. Multily of them complained that an EV is not usable as a daily car while i own an EV for 4.5 years now and it is usable as a daily driver.

The transition in China is significanlty faster than in Europe.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#499

Post by dijit » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:43 PM UTC

Gomotono wrote: post #495

dijit wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In nominal terms "we outspend them" is true, but it misses the forest for the trees. Nominal spend is the wrong yardstick when one side builds at home for a fraction of the cost; Russian labour, steel and energy are far cheaper at the point of use, which is why PPP estimates put their real military output roughly level with the whole of Europe combined. And spend isn't the binding constraint anyway: it's production.…

Russia is 3x poorer than germany and has half of our GDP. Russia has power because of their nuclear arsenal which is unclear how well it is maintained. But no we can fill up and build faster and better than russia. And the war against ukraine is hurting russia now for over 1000 days. Russia even has to go so far to reduce mobile and internet. This alone hurts Russia as a whole.

"We don't need to spend more" isn't an observation, it's a bet. And you're betting with other people's lives.

We’ve already ran this experiment. After Crimea we set ourselves a 2% floor; three countries hit it in 2014, SEVEN by 2022, and we only all cleared it in 2025. A bar we set for ourselves, missed for eleven years. And the moment we finally hit it, what did we do? we admitted it was never going to be enough and moved the target to 3.5%. So spare me "we're already doing enough" by our own standards we've been in deficit for a decade.

that decade isn't free, someone always pays for it. It's why in 2024 ukraine was firing two shells for every ten russia sent back, and dying in the gap, while we sat in rooms talking about "factory capacity". "russia's poorer per capita" means precisely nothing to a man being outgunned five to one by an economy that actually decided to build consistently over decades.

Where we draw the line, fine, ok, that's a hard question and I'll happily argue it all day. From my comfortable computer chair, far away from seeing my home, my family and my friends being gunned down because an expansionist regime decided that they thought we’d be weak enough.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#500

Post by s1artibartfast » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:45 PM UTC

chabska wrote: post #355

Natfan wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sorry, but i wouldn't want my money manager to attempt to engage in unethical or illegal practices in order to turn a profit...

The point is that it's the job of the democratic legislature to codify what you just stated here into law, so that all money managers have to abide by this standard, not just those that have a personal conviction for it. That's the essence of rule of law.

There is room for both. Not every aspect of morality needs to made law, as significant portions are subjective and debated. Law should be a least common denominator.

This leaves room for individuals to act in accordance with their morals above and beyond the law.