• Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    random people having this kind of influence on international conflicts because they have a lot of money is good and healthy and okay

      • anewbeginning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If Musk doesn’t learn to play ball, the us government might well take control of the tech for the remainder of the war. Geopolitics is the game that is played with all the pieces.

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “One of the advantages is the huge amount of innovation coming out of the private sector, which the government wants to leverage to stay ahead of China and others,” said Brian Weeden, the director of program planning at the Secure World Foundation, a think tank.

    Well if the government had invested in its space and innovation programs they wouldn’t have to rely on the private sector.

    • knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US government has certainly invested in private space programs. SpaceX is just one very expensive and prominent example.

    • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly I’m kind of glad that they didn’t. Imagine if the US government had even more control and surveillance potential over the internet. I know they already basically have 100% but, I dunno, a network of low-Earth-orbit satellites constantly hovering overhead, covering every square centimetre of the earth, is a bit scary.

      • IronCorgi@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think the same network in the hands of an unstable billionaire is an improvement. Given the choice I’d rather the U.S. have control of the network.

  • tallwookie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    sort of odd they’re getting their internet though a civilian source though - there’s got to be better, more secure options.

    • StudioLE@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are certainly more secure options but better is unlikely given how revolutionary starlink is.

  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a shit article. Is it a job requirement that anyone at WaPo writing about Musk turns everything into fawning praise? Almost none of the article is about the incident itself, the majority of it is just rehashing all the things Musk’s companies have done while crediting him for it (lol) and completely burying that the book alleges he shut down the internet during the drone attack after being in contact with senior Russian officials.

    • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s pretty much an advert for his biography lol. It’s going to have a bunch of clickbaity stories which look as though they may be critical of Musk, but it turn out that he’s the good guy, after all.

    • timespace@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      the book alleges he shut down the internet during the drone attack after being in contact with senior Russian officials

      Who threatened a nuclear strike in response. If that’s true, it does paint a different picture of the situation, does it not?

      I’m no Musk dick rider (if fact, I can’t stand him), but that’s a tough spot to be in.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Who threatened a nuclear strike in response. If that’s true, it does paint a different picture of the situation, does it not?

        Not really, because what that means is Russia now just has to say “nuclear war” any time they want to kill Starlink in Ukraine. If he had real concerns he was more than capable of getting in touch with the correct people. Instead he decided that he, not the Ukrainian military, gets to make calls on drone usage.

        He wants to cry crocodile tears about how he never imagined Starlink would be used for war when he made it accessible to Ukraine after the Russian invasion… well, they’re in the middle of a war. If he truly is that stupid he has absolutely no business making decisions any more complicated than “caf or decaf?”

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s interesting to see how egotistical the man is. He’s just shown militaries all around the world that he’s willing to actively meddle in their battles. In other words, he is now a potentially powerful active combatant.

    It’s easy to imagine the US military making plans to take over his operations in case of national emergency, and it’s also easy to imagine other countries coming up with black ops to deal with him in less friendly ways.

    I’m sure he didn’t think about that, but if he did he’d probably feel proud that now he’s important, not realizing that it’s not the kind of importance a normal person would really want.

  • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Website is paywalled, no archive link, and I can’t make any sense out of the TL;DR. Why did Starlink cut off the Ukraine’s internet access? I’m guessing it’s for a much less interesting reason than the headline wants us to assume

  • popemichael@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    People have a lot of family over there. A lot of folks are really upset.

    I wonder how much more before people have an extreme reaction to him personally.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    But the recounting of the incident is a reminder of how SpaceX — and its founder — amassed enormous power and leverage as its competitors proved incapable of keeping up with a dizzying pace of innovation.

    “One of the advantages is the huge amount of innovation coming out of the private sector, which the government wants to leverage to stay ahead of China and others,” said Brian Weeden, the director of program planning at the Secure World Foundation, a think tank.

    SpaceX started providing Starlink internet service to Ukraine after Russia’s invasion, creating a lifeline for the country when its communications systems had largely been knocked out.

    “Despite being the launch provider with the most proven track record and the lowest prices in the industry, SpaceX was seemingly not considered by Amazon,” the suit alleges.

    “SpaceX has been truly innovative in several key areas, launch and large constellation broadband internet — two things people have long dreamed of but have been tried and failed before,” Weeden said.

    A good portion of that success stems from Musk himself, who works relentlessly and pushes his teams to as well, attempting to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds.


    The original article contains 1,360 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 86%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • whileloop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wow…this summary had almost nothing to do with Ukraine…

      Sorry bot, you usually do a good job, but not this time.

    • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why is that piece devolving into a suck-fest for Musk? Or is the random firing of employees he is reportedly prone to now considered “pushing his team”?