|
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Indeed. The ability to build something does not come with an automatic right to continue to operate it during a war. That said, I would assume Musk did not reach this decision in a vacuum. What surprises me is that there has never been a leak from inside SpaceX about the circumstances of these decisions. |
| |
| ▲ | ThunderSizzle an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | How would a county like Ukraine go about regulating a company like Starlink in this manner? You can't nationalize another country's business, especially when their assets are floating in space disconnectes entirely from your country. If they want to regulate it, they need to build it first.
Ukraine has no ability to regulate Starlink. It's not theirs to regulate. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Ukraine clearly can not regulate a company like Starlink. But the United States has that level of control and Musk is either using it to benefit putin or he's using it to benefit trump. Both of these could be fixed and could be fixed in relatively short order if there was the will to do so. The rest of your comment is just restating the obvious so I won't respond to that. | |
| ▲ | throw93839383u an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > How would a county like Ukraine go about regulating a company like Starlink in this manner? Kill its CEO. Musk was already on ukranian kill list (myrotvorets) in 2022, that failed and Musk is still alive. Another option is to sabotage its infrastructure, They (allegedly) blow up pipeline in europe, they did not like. Blowing up launch sites in texas is within their capabilities. |
| |
| ▲ | throw0101a an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What surprises me is that there has never been a leak from inside SpaceX about the circumstances of these decisions. What point is there in trying to get sources to leak things when decisions are made at the top on a whim, versus policy options being analyzed video position papers and reports. It's the same as the current White House: there's no point in trying to cultivate sources as decisions come from one place, with no consensus seeking, often in the middle of the night, and can be changed a few hours later. | |
| ▲ | rapsey an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Musk has been pretty vocal. Past controversy was literally the government asking him to do something illegal. Starshield is starlink for the US military. I highly doubt this controversy is anything other than SpaceX doing what the US gov tells them. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | chpatrick an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is like the CEO of Lockheed Martin deciding what can be bombed... |
| |
| ▲ | rapsey an hour ago | parent [-] | | And where does it say this was SpaceX decision? Seems highly unlikely to me. Starshield is litteraly a US gov project which this is about. Not the public network at all. The title is clickbait honestly. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Did you see all the protests by Musk how he did this under pressure? Hm. Neither did I. | |
| ▲ | chpatrick an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is Ukraine using Starshield or the commercial one? I thought it was the latter. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | eqvinox an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is about regulating it, not running it. When things need regulation, putting the creators in charge is almost never a good idea. |
|
| ▲ | exitb an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is it uncommon for companies that produce dual use tech to have stronger oversight? |
|
| ▲ | dgellow an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Obviously, yes. At some point that becomes infrastructure the rest of society relies upon, not just a personal project for someone as unhinged as musk |
|
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | Muromec an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >The guy who built it should not be running it because it is too important? What's so radical about this anyway? |
