Why SpaceX? I hate Musk and do not support any of his other... anythings. However, rocket go zoom then land without boom is fun to watch. I am genuinely curious why SpaceX is bad.
I completely agree about everything else you mentioned.
However, rocket go zoom then land without boom is fun to watch.
Yeah, Musk is a true innovater by having them blow up the concrete launchpad on launch instead…
The government got more money from the patents NASA got then it cost to fund NASA. Privatizing space hurts everyone except the rich asshole who gets the parents.
Some people can’t get over the fact that spaceX is a net positive for humans. Just as Tesla helped push other manufacturers into the world of EVs. They just hate musk to the point that anything he is associated with is bad.
everyone was moving to EV’s with or without tesla. if you want to credit anyone go back to the Prius way back in the late 90s. They set the trend, Tesla jumped on that trend.
I'm not defending musk. So tired of that qualifier in this thread.
The prius is not an EV it's a hybrid and nobody thought they were cool. Even tree huggers like me. Tesla made electric cars cool until everyone found out how poorly they were assembled. Then the other manufacturers, seeing that electric cars could be profitable, started tooling their assembly lines. You have your history completely backwards.
I’m not defending musk. So tired of that qualifier in this thread.
did not say you were.
The prius is not an EV it’s a hybrid and nobody thought they were cool.
it sold incredibly well and proved that there was a market, and yes it was a hybrid as the technology wasn’t there. do tesla get kudos for waiting for battery technology now?
You have your history completely backwards.
do you think that the prius came out after a tesla? you need to explain this one.
The new Prius Prime is cool af in my opinion.
it doesn’t matter what you find personally cool for what it’s worth, then or now.
If I didn't put that qualifier there would be comments talking shit about musk. Read the rest of this comment section and it's clear as day.
The prius did not sell incredibly well. That is completely false. It sold well enough to be profitable but even a standard Corolla sold more year after year. It took a decade or more before any other serious options existed.
The previous paragraph covers your next question. You have your history wrong about how well the Prius sold and how long until EV's became desirable.
A better wording would have been that the new Prius is more desirable than the previous generations. Which reinforces the previous Prius not "being cool."
The prius did not sell incredibly well. That is completely false. It sold well enough to be profitable but even a standard Corolla sold more year after year.
… uh, yes. the traditional fossil fuel based card sold better than a car selling to a new market. do you want to compare it to, oh i don’t know, a ford focus too? are you trying to talk about the hybrid version that came out in the 2010’s like 15 years after the prius?
if you want to make the argument that the prius wasn’t instrumental in proving the EV market, good luck. you won’t find much backing with these talking points.
Because there was nothing else to compare it to at the time. It was the first viable hybrid, we agree on that. The part that I'm having a hard time explaining is that it was not hugely successful and not the motivation for all current EV's. It wasn't even a plug-in hybrid until 2012. That is 9 years AFTER Tesla.
Major manufactures did not attempt EVs until Tesla made a killing on them. Most of them did not even make serious attempts at hybrids until the mid 2000's.
Because there was nothing else to compare it to at the time.
grab this thread, you can maybe start to understand how they were instrumental in creating and proving the EV market that Tesla would eventually capitalise on top of
I understand your argument, I just don't think it is right.
The Prius never motivated other car manufactures to make EVs. Seriously, tooling the assembly lines did not begin until after Tesla.
Why did it take a decade to go from Prius to Tesla, but a only a few years after Tesla for other manufactures to start seriously producing hybrids and EVs?
I mean the answer to your last thing is battery technology. the lithium ion battery boom is the real driver of EV’s in general. you really gotta understand the role that Tesla played here is to surf on the wave, not create it.
a bunch of weirdo cars came out that were based on lead acid batteries in the 70s? i think, that killed that market
Prius proved the market existed with their Hybrid, that demand was there. they also totally dominated the market with their brand and no one else was tooled up for it.
Batteries with the capability of pushing hybrids, ev’s boomed into mass scale in the mid-2000’s
Tesla and many others take advantage of both of these things happening to great success.
I mean the answer to your last thing is battery technology.
I agree that battery tech is what brought about full EVs. I still disagree that the Prius did.
Tesla and many others take advantage of both of these things happening to great success.
Could you please name a just couple of the "many others" that successfully implemented the new battery chemistry into their cars? Actually just one other would do. I apologize if that sounds rude it's not my intention. I can't think of a better way of wording this.
Tesla built charging infrastructure. Nobody was willing to rely on an EV, that’s “electric vehicle”, because they didn’t trust the range or the ability to recharge.
That’s why instead of producing EVs, it produced one hybrid, which never at any moment ever asked a consumer to rely entirely on electricity for their transportation.
I can’t say that without Tesla EV would be as popular, mainly because at the time when Tesla started was 9 years after the GM EV1 was a failure. I don’t think other companies would have seen building EV as a good investment, but who could know?
but I love that he created the market for electric cars
This is like saying OJ Simpson invented Smuckers Uncrustables so he’s not all bad…
Firstly, it’s not true.
Secondly, even if it was true, it doesn’t amount to enough to celebrate him.
Because putting peanut butter and jelly in a sandwich was already a thing that was popular. It just became worse for the environment and more expensive for consumers by individuall packaging them and requiring them to be frozen.
Your second is an opinion piece that doesn’t back up their claims… And I doubt the authors judgement because they said up to 2016 no one was betting on EVs, despite virtually all of the big companies being in the game at that point.
If you set out to prove some people believe it wouldn’t happen without Tesla, congrats.
But I can find an article from someone who thinks the world is flat too, that doesn’t mean the world is flat.
You have yet to spout anything but your opinion, which goes against everyone else’s opinion.
The big 3 were not taking EV cars seriously. They did enough to show they were doing it but their focus was ICE.
Tesla changed that. You are free to stomp your foot all you want but it doesn’t change that Tesla drove the EV market forward. They dominate the EV market for that reason and have the highest percentage of people who would buy another Tesla EV.
The first link addressed his claim pretty thoroughly. I suspect you commented that assuming most people would not read it to verify your claim. I have seen you spouting bullshit all throughout this comment section so I had to read it so that I can call you out. You're either lying or extremely bad at understanding the article. He provided links, you provided bullshit.
Here is the actual quote from the second article you take issue with: "But Elon Musk's company has shown that EVs are a viable way to build a business. As recently as 2016, the jury was still out on that matter." So you twisted shit so much you changed the meaning. That's either done in bad faith or you're extremely bad a reading comprehension.
So could you name any EVs that were available from the big companies in 2016?
I hate that I am here defending Tesla, but I hate the bullshit coming from you even more.
At least you finally admitted it, can you stop replying to every comment in this thread now? That’d be great, but I’m fine going back to ignoring you too.
Once again you miss the context. I'm leaning heavily towards you having issues with reading comprehension. At least that's better than commenting in bad faith.
This motherfucker is like: "you're being mean, go away, I'm not listening." But then replies to my comment first. While once again ignoring most of the comment he's replying to.
I'm not going away. I'm having fun with you at this point. :)
EVs are still going to be the wrong answer to the problem. Sure, more efficient than combustable, but still vastly less efficient than good public transport systems, walkable/bikeable cities, etc. If Elon really wanted to save the planet, he’d be building bullet trains.
Yeah, but there’s also the cognitive dissonance of you saying SpaceX is fun because they don’t explode…
But they do explode. Waaaaay more than NASA. Because if a NASA launch goes bad, everyone pays attention. If SpaceX goes bad, people just shrug
So by your own metrics you just said…
NASA is better than SpaceX.
No matter what position I took, it would have disagreed with your comment, because your comment disagrees with itself. Which explains why you think spacex is a positive.
You may hate Starlink for what ever reason and Ol Musky, but SpaceX has completely changed the game for launch capabilities and proved rocket reuse works.
It’s easy for “SpaceX to explode way more” when NASA has launched a single rocket in the last 13 years. Are you referring to Falcon 9? Starship? Falcon 1?
SpaceX has only had 2 mission failures out of 274 total missions. Since 2017 SpaceX has had a 100% success rate which is a vast majority of its total missions. The recent explosions have been test rockets and expected to blow up, it’s how they learn and innovate so quickly. NASA takes billions of dollars and 10+ years to successfully launch a rocket on the first attempt. It’s just 2 different approaches to design and innovation.
Nah dude. You don’t understand. A guy we don’t like is tangibly related to the space program. Fuck all them scientists and engineers. They’re all evil. Every. Single. One of them.
I don’t know why people are downvoting me, I’d love it if NASA could innovate the way private companies can, but they just can’t. The way SpaceX is currently developing Starship would not be possible if NASA was doing it. (And no I’m not endorsing Musk I wish the company was owned by someone else)
If you read all the comments by givesomefucks you will see that they ignore context and make wild assumptions repeatedly. They are on the hate musk train and not addressing the topic.
You: SpaceX?
givesomefuck: musk is terrible, musk blow up things, musk stole my girl/boyfriend
You: Okay, but what I was asking was...
givesomefucks: musk is the worst human ever, EVER!!!!
Dude or lady is triggered. I get it musk is a douche of the highest order but givessomefucks has let it cause them to miss context and make wild assumptions. Sad really. I wish we could talk about things without whatever bullshit their on. My original question was only answered to the extent of musk is bad.
They are slow but it is by design. They want things to be safe. Some say they over engineer things but I think when we are talking about people, that is needed.
They literally don’t innovate in the same way. Like you said, if NASA blew up anything there’d be an investigation, making it impossible for them to iterate rapidly, meaning they are unable to innovate in the way private companies can.
Because Musk is a vocal ass and so many on Lemmy can’t distinguish the good some of his companies do from the jerkoff owner.
Nestle does evil and is run by evil. Tesla is pushing the automobile industry in the direction it needs to go, but it is majority owned by evil. It’s not as simple as a keyboard activist response, so I’m looking forward to the downvotes as I point this out again.
Good luck ever trying to defend Tesla and Space X on Lemmy.
Why would you want to defend those companies? Literally what the fuck good do you think they’re doing? How does it outweigh the huge government subsidies they take away from non-garbage companies that could do the same things but without being as awful?
I asked a fucking question and the only answer I got was "musk bad." I posted very clear qualifiers in the original comment and every other comment stating exactly that but somehow a whole bunch of y'all completely ignore that, repeatedly. It's a critical bit of context that completely negates any defenses of any thing.
Then you go on to mention Tesla which was not mentioned in the comment you replied to. So it's obvious you're reading what's written throughout the comments. It also makes obvious that you're only picking out the parts you want. I never, not once, in any way defended Tesla.
I DON'T SUPPORT MUSK. I DID NOT DEFEND SPACEX OR TESLA. How else can I make it clear? What the fuck is going on with people missing the key bit of context?
I asked a question about SpaceX and someone else mentions Tesla. Somehow a bunch of you fuckers read it as I'm defending both SpaceX and Tesla.
For example they “decorated” our night sky with thousands of their satellites. Never asked permission. Astronomers around the globe are pissed because their work & results gets worse. Other people who own satellites are pissed because they don’t behave up there.
I would like to point out that they did ask for permission. Though obviously they didn’t ask for permission from every government in the world, nor did they ask the astronomy community.
Except the carbon footprint of Starlink is estimated to be 30x greater than terrestrial alternatives.
More than half of all satellites in space are already Starlink at around 5,000, with 12,000 planned in the near future and up to 42,000 as a later expansion.
I’d love to be able to get a usable terrestrial alternative at my place. Wonky 4G ain’t it. 5G is years away, if it ever gets here. Fibre? Perish the thought.
Falcon 9 makes use of kerosene, which puts black soot into the atmosphere (if they used solely liquid oxygen or liquid hydrogen the only thing left would be water vapour)
Serious damage at a Texas base (caused craters and debris to scatter around remote cameras)
An explosion on the launch pad during a test caused damage
Boca Chica…
Massive amounts of dust, which contain toxic shit
Destroyed the launchpad (scattering large chunks of concrete into delicate marine and coastal sanctuaries nearby)
Space. They’re killing radio astronomy, endangering optical astronomy and threatening everything else in orbit, from telecoms, to earth observation, to the ISS.
They’re also spreading rare earth metal everywhere when the satellites burn up and wasting a lot of energy to get them up there when we’re facing an energy crisis.
Oracle hires more lawyers than they do developers then they do things like “oh? You’re using this product in the cloud with the license you purchased? But you didn’t purchase the cloud license”
They also buy technology and proceed to violate whatever license it has, like ZFS.
Stands for One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison, not officially but I like to think it is. It’s a corporation built around a database engine.
They have a well deserved terrible reputation based on their commercial practices, including but not exhaustive, shipping full fledged software with functionality locked behind paywalls, buying and demolishing established open source companies/projects, suing the shit out of their customers for license violation (see above), price gouging their customers who often have no other choice than to run their products.
The engine itself is nice and reliable but the business practices of Oracle drives a lot of companies to settle for the competition, at least, those who can afford to leave.
Autism Speaks. It has a pro-eugenics mindset, so you’d think everyone would be boycotting it, right? Nope, in fact it’s partnered with the Jim Henson company.
It’s founded and ran by two boomers who have an autistic grandson and were very very upset he had autism. That’s the generation that would actively try to avoid diagnosis and help because they thought the label was worse than the disease, preventing an entire generation from getting assistance.
So its less about empowering people with autism, and more fearmongering how bad it is and that someone with autism shouldn’t have any agency or choice in their lives.
I didn’t dig very deep, but yeah, I could see how that organization does a bunch of problematic shit
I’ve been on Linux exclusively for a decade now and I am super excited to get an HDR monitor when it gets implemented (there was some major work being done by redhat and others).
In the meanwhile, I am still having fun with games, hdr or other fancypants features won’t vhange that.
energy producers that still don’t use renewables exclusively
private hospital corporations
cruises companies
unsustainable agrarian producers
All of these are literally killing children. Not directly and immediately but according to the IPCC report we have 1,5 to 2 years time to get to ZERO emissions, else we got some tipping points and risk turning earth into a Venus-like planet.
Governments like the UK that insist prohition is a better alternative to harm reduction but continue to profit from poisons like alcohol.
How does one boycott the government? Would I cut up my ID and declare myself a sovereign citizen? As much as I agree with the sentiment, I don’t think it’s as easy as that haha
Add comment