Remix clone Hacker News

You believe the FAA, FCC, OHSA, EPA, FDA, etc., will cease to regulate SpaceX, Tesla, Nuralink operations? That seems pretty outlandish.

▲

michaelt 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They won't cease to regulate, no.

But you may have noticed companies like Boeing getting white-glove treatment from regulators.

You know, deciding that their competitor's cheaper aircraft should be subject to a 300% tariff. Not burdening them with too much scrutiny about whether that modified aircraft should keep the same type rating. Taking their word for it when they say every aircraft has 100% of the door bolts installed. If they have broken some regulations, maybe giving a $150 billion company a $250 million fine.

Not ceasing to regulate - just regulators with broad discretionary power exercising that discretion in line with the will of the politicians who appoint them.

▲

vbezhenar 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Starlink is the most important military weapon in the world right now. Those civilian organizations have no say when state security is at hand. It's like disarming nuclear rockets because some green guys care about birds. Will not happen.

▲

starspangled 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"National security" obviously gets significant concessions from regulators. That doesn't mean military and adjacent industries or significant industries and works are above the regulators, it just means the necessity of the activity and input from military and other interested parties would be duly taken into account by regulators.

That's not unique to SpaceX and I don't think that's wrong as such, although people argue that military interests in general get too much leeway.

▲

hhh 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Starshield != Starlink

	▲	bbarnett 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Parent should have said "SpaceX", Starlink is just a subsidiary. SpaceX has more military applications than Starshield alone. For example, SpaceX's assembly line will be pumping out (eventually) a rocket a day. That's the plan. From a military perspective, Starship is supposed to be able to send 100+ people on long space trips. If that is instead to deliver troops to other parts of the planet, I'm sure hundreds could be packed in. Imagine a fast deploy with parachute capability for personnel and cargo, just as with planes, but with immense range and deploy speed. You may wonder why, but aircraft carriers and their fleets are considered less usable as deploy platforms, due to increased vulnerability. If the US continues to withdraw from the world stage, its ability to deploy could be affected by a reduction in 'friendly' regional countries and thus leased bases. I don't see any issue with this now, but once a large conflict breaks out, who knows... and this could vastly enhance Starship or equiv as a deploy platform. I'm sure some reading this will balk at "large war" and "never happen" and so on, but Starshield is an example of a platform for such a large conflict. So considering the use of Starship itself as a lightning speed, emergency deploy platform is important. There are all sorts of gotchas, such as being shot down, but of course those same issues exist with planes or ships. Frankly, with the state of AI, the close-to-real Android + military robots, along with drones, Starship would be best served by mass fly-over and deploy of 100k small drones, or hundreds of military robot platforms, or.. well, lots of things. This really isn't about Starship of course. It's just that we've gotten to the point where this sort of platform is very usable. I can't imagine sending in a large-cost asset like this for general troop deploy, but I can for special ops, weapons platforms in low-risk flyovers, and a variety of other use cases. And in times of war, things get nationalized too. Interesting thoughts on the logistics side.

▲

btilly 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Elon Musk was just appointed by Donald Trump as being in charge of firing half of the government. He won't likely do that. But any regulator who gets in his way?

Yeah, not many will volunteer for "the firing line."

▲

starspangled 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I really don't know what Musk has been appointed to do and it's a laughably blatant conflict of interest, but conflicts of interest seem to be what the entire government is built on. Politicians involved with energy and military companies are involved in decisions to go to war, generals get lucrative consultancy jobs at military firms, congress makes billions of dollars insider trading, foreign aid somehow finds its way funneled through "charities" owned by the ruling class, politicians cosy with medical companies block real healthcare reform, etc.

Musk isn't anything new or different here. The idea that he'll just be above the law is fearmongering hyperbole though. Sure he'll get favorable treatment and be able to push his agenda to degrees well out of reach of us commoners. No more than if he'd just stayed in the shadows and bought his politicians and judges and bureaucrats and generals like a normal billionaire.

▲

hsuduebc2 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I follow the same reasoning as you. This is actually nothing really "new". Patronage from politicics is something that is publicly criticized but is quite common among politicians and business.

▲

smolder 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It's too bad no one in government will ever step up to undo the citizens united ruling. At least we didn't have legal-but-opaque bribery, prior. The difference is substantial when people can't report on where campaign financing comes from without someone first talking too loud about it in a public setting.

	▲	_heimdall 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The good news, at least, is that Citizens United was only a legal ruling and can be overturned by another ruling. Laws are much harder to undue, with rulings we don't need anyone in the government to step up (other than judges trying the case).

▲

einichi 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How can you determine a conflict of interest if you don’t know what he’s been appointed to do?

▲

starspangled 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Because I heard he was going to have some advisory or executive capacity on government operation. There's a significant conflict of interest there if he's running and owning these companies at the same time.

▲

_heimdall 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Its hard to determine a conflict of interest when the role isn't clear though, and the problem there is that everyone can really go off of what they heard through the grape vine.

If the role truly is advisory I wouldn't personally see that as a conflict of interest. Regulators are often asking for advise from those they are meant to regulate without it getting flagged as a conflict of interest (for better or worse).

	▲	starspangled 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think it's that hard to determine. He has big companies involved in significant regulatory actions and oversight, he would stand to gain a lot by influencing things slightly in his favor. Sure, taken to absurdity everybody in government has a conflict of interest because they are alive on the same planet and have heir own views on things, but for the case of someone like Musk it's pretty clear. Politicians and bureaucrats can and should consult with the people they govern of course. The "proper" way to do that would be via reasonably open and transparent process that is open to interested parties so competitors, customers, unions, scientists could have their say. Again I'm fully aware this isn't how things actually work, so I'm not saying Musk is really doing anything outside the norm in American politics by buying a seat at the table. He's just being slightly more open about it than most of them.

▲

mschuster91 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The idea that he'll just be above the law is fearmongering hyperbole though

Is it? If there is anything the 45th and the aftermath has shown is that there are people clearly above the law. And even without the 45th, Musk himself has escaped justice many many times - especially the SEC whose explicit orders he openly defied multiple times.

▲

starspangled 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes I think it is, and I think the rhetoric around Trump is hyperbole and fearmongering too.

Not that you can't criticize them, I just don't see exaggeration being interesting or helpful there. Also I think caring about certain corruption or conflicts of interest when it happens to politicians one disagrees with is fairly easy to be seen as being divisive or politically motivated even if it's not. I thought that wheeling out the architects of the Iraq war to denounce Trump's corruption/incompetence/bad foreign policy/etc was particularly ironic and sad, for example, even if they might have been technically correct.

Musk isn't going to be immune to federal regulators. I'm sure he'll get the kinds of favors that come with buying politicians as all the rest of them get though.

▲

mschuster91 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Yes I think it is, and I think the rhetoric around Trump is hyperbole and fearmongering too.

Well just reading through Project 2025 is very sobering. It's not like old times where what they wanted had to be read through the lines any more, it's right out in the open what they want to do - and even getting a quarter of their plans actually passed through is a very, very troubling perspective.

> I thought that wheeling out the architects of the Iraq war to denounce Trump's corruption/incompetence/bad foreign policy/etc was particularly ironic and sad, for example, even if they might have been technically correct.

A sad consequence of people no longer debating policy on a shared common ground based on facts, but on tribalism, lies and propaganda instead.

	▲	starspangled 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I shouldn't have brought up Trump, the subject never goes anywhere useful in an online debate. That was just my opinion, and other opinions and fears are not invalid. > > I thought that wheeling out the architects of the Iraq war to denounce Trump's corruption/incompetence/bad foreign policy/etc was particularly ironic and sad, for example, even if they might have been technically correct. > A sad consequence of people no longer debating policy on a shared common ground based on facts, but on tribalism, lies and propaganda instead. Yep. When they do that it does make you wonder who shares common ground with whom, and who spreads lies and propaganda about what.