The Unofficial "Elon Musk trying to "Save Everyone" from Themselves (except his Step-Sister)" Thread...

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

They aren't and weren't planning to invest their resources to putting broadband in the middle of nowhere, same as some smaller ISPs.  

 

 

 

what is your point?  
 

 

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

Did US come to Musk and say we need Internet in rural areas, or did Musk come to US for subsidies for something he already planned to do? 

The US came to all companies and said “We will give you money if you do x”  in the form of the grant program.
 

SpaceX said “We’ll do x” and thusly applied for the grant and were given the money.

 

 

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

And the debate is still now does he need those subsidies and what rules are there on those subsidies.

 

no it isn’t. It doesn’t matter whether or not he “needs” the subsidies.  It only matters if he can execute on the deliverables the government expects to receive from the subsidies. They are going to give the subsides out to someone anyway so they will not save money by not giving them to Musk.

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

Jus say it's your opinion and not a fact then, because money is a finite resource is not an opinion, it's a fact.

I never said it was a fact. Of course it is my opinion. But your evidence that inception isn’t a result (shark tank) is easily disputable since getting on the show itself is a result.

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

what is your point?  
 

 

That we had to spend money to get the existing ISPs do something they didn't want to do, that's not the same as Musk with Starlink, he's been trying to do this for a while now.

 

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The US came to all companies and said “We will give you money if you do x”  in the form of the grant program.
 

SpaceX said “We’ll do x” and thusly applied for the grant and were given the money.

 

 

I hate using Wikipedia as a source, but this looks like what I thought that he was trying to do this for a while, not that he only started because US government asked him if he could.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink

 

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

no it isn’t. It doesn’t matter whether or not he “needs” the subsidies.  It only matters if he can execute on the deliverables the government expects to receive from the subsidies. They are going to give the subsides out to someone anyway so they will not save money by not giving them to Musk.

 

I disagree

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I never said it was a fact. Of course it is my opinion. But your evidence that inception isn’t a result (shark tank) is easily disputable since getting on the show itself is a result.

 

Cool, it's also my opinion and fact that getting on the show isn't enough to get money from any of them. 

 

If you want to argue inception is a result, I would counter argue that many don't consider it as one alone worthy of investment and subsidies, Shark Tank showing example after example of why.

 

Inception alone isn't good enough to warrant investment, let alone subsidies. I don't agree with your point that that's enough to warrant subsidies.  I guess not all "results" are created equal.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

This has been my favorite thread to read ever.

 

Where's the largest pill bottle ever, to catch all the tears?

[RansomthePasserby]

5 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That we had to spend money to get the existing ISPs do something they didn't want to do, that's not the same as Musk with Starlink, he's been trying to do this for a while now.

 

I hate using Wikipedia as a source, but this looks like what I thought that he was trying to do this for a while, not that he only started because US government asked him if he could.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink

Seems like an efficient use of the subsidies then. If SpaceX was trying to provide the service already they will use a larger percentage of the funds on faster/better implementation. A company that wasn’t previously planning to provide the service would have to invest a large portion of the funds in R&D, hiring new staff, conceptual design and testing, etc.

 

It’s more efficient to buy a pizza from Dominos than it is to have McDonalds develop a McPizza. 

[Renegade7]

12 minutes ago, RansomthePasserby said:

Seems like an efficient use of the subsidies then. If SpaceX was trying to provide the service already they will use a larger percentage of the funds on faster/better implementation. A company that wasn’t previously planning to provide the service would have to invest a large portion of the funds in R&D, hiring new staff, conceptual design and testing, etc.

 

It’s more efficient to buy a pizza from Dominos than it is to have McDonalds develop a McPizza. 

 

Now Starlink is operational in Ukraine and winning contracts for airplane internet service. 

 

Is anyone with a straight face gonna say Starlink should still get subsidies next fiscal year?

 

Couple different debates here looking like the same one when they aren't, if SpaceX and Starlink are winning contracts and Elon is pulling together 44 billion dollars to buy Twitter, should SpaceX (and now Starlink) keep getting subsidies? 

 

My answer is no, what I keep hearing is it was worth it in response. 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Renegade7

[CousinsCowgirl84]

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That we had to spend money to get the existing ISPs do something they didn't want to do, that's not the same as Musk with Starlink, he's been trying to do this for a while now.

 

 

I hate using Wikipedia as a source, but this looks like what I thought that he was trying to do this for a while, not that he only started because US government asked him if he could.

 

So your position is that we should punish companies that make investments in our country of their own volition? Seems like a good way to discourage investment to me.

 

 

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I disagree

but, you are wrong. You don’t give out subsidies because a company needs them. You give out subsidies because you want to get something accomplished.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Cool, it's also my opinion and fact that getting on the show isn't enough to get money from any of them. 
 

 

But, you don’t have to get money from them in order to have a successful result. Many people have went on there with no intention of making a deal, solely for the exposure. Uber and Ring didn’t make deals on shark tank but the exposure and advice they got while appearing on they show helped launch there companies to the moon.

 

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

If you want to argue inception is a result, I would counter argue that many don't consider it as one alone worthy of investment and subsidies, Shark Tank showing example after example of why.

 

Well I disagree, as above. You re stuck on the idea the only result possible with shark tank is getting a deal. Clearly that’s not the case.  

 

 

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Inception alone isn't good enough to warrant investment, let alone subsidies. I don't agree with your point that that's enough to warrant subsidies. 

So then you agree that you would rather give subsides to companies that get results than companies that need them?

 

OK, we agree 👍 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

So your position is that we should punish companies that make investments in our country of their own volition? Seems like a good way to discourage investment to me.

 

 

How is it punishing a company for the government to look at their own balance sheet and a company's before giving said company subsidies?  Once upon a time that was called fiscal responsibility, we act like we got it like that that it doesn't matter, but we really don't when we look at the deficits the government is running.  I'm asking for more discretion, not punishment. 

 

6 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

but, you are wrong. You don’t give out subsidies because a company needs them. You give out subsidies because you want to get something accomplished.

 

Why can't it be both? Because I never said it had to be one or the other, which seems like less of a radical position then saying something like "inception alone is a result worthy of subsidies".  Again, we act like we have it like that, but we don't. 

[Renegade7]

27 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

But, you don’t have to get money from them in order to have a successful result. Many people have went on there with no intention of making a deal, solely for the exposure. Uber and Ring didn’t make deals on shark tank but the exposure and advice they got while appearing on they show helped launch there companies to the moon.

 

 

Well I disagree, as above. You re stuck on the idea the only result possible with shark tank is getting a deal. Clearly that’s not the case.  

 

The goal of the show is to get money for them their business needs, not advice. 

 

Getting money is not the "only result possible" but it is the primary desired result.  The number of companies that went on there, didn't get the money and blew up like Uber and Ring is not a large one.

 

27 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

So then you agree that you would rather give subsides to companies that get results than companies that need them?

 

OK, we agree 👍 

 

 

 

I think we getting somewhere here, but disagree on the "results" part of this conversation.  Need needs to be higher in this conversation in the context of limited resources.

 

If I had to choose giving to companies that don't need the money versus whatever you and I settle on regarding results, I'd pick the later.  Sometimes we have to give to subsidies to companies that don't need the money,  but right now I believe we've gotten way too carried away with that.

 

Look I can't go back and forth today like I did yesterday, but I'll respond : )

Edited April 26, 2022 by Renegade7

[TradeTheBeal!]

Exciting times!

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

26 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

The goal of the show is to get money for them their business needs, not advice. 

 

Getting money is not the "only result possible" but it is the primary desired result.  The number of companies that went on there, didn't get the money and blew up like Uber and Ring is not a large one.

 

Of course, but it shows there are different ways to get “results” and that your idea that shark tank show “inception” isn’t a result universally is wrong.  
 

In the context of what we are talking about here, Uber and Ring are no rarer than space x or Tesla.

 

Shark tank would have never invested in them or Apple or Amazon or any other ground breaking companies. Most of the time they invest in remarketed plastic. And that’s not a dig a shark tank. The want businesses they easily understand. 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

I think we getting somewhere here, but disagree on the "results" part of this conversation.  Need needs to be higher in this conversation in the context of limited resources.

 

if you had decided to give 10 dollars to spurs investment in x and you determines through analysis that company 1 would return 40 dollars on gat investment and company 2 would return 20 dollars who would you choose, if you had to choose? (The us government does not choose, they just give money to whoever will take it) what you are saying is that it matters that company one has 400 dollars and is already trying to do x. 
 

But why? You are going to spend the money either way. But one company will get you more in return.

 

26 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

If I had to choose giving to companies that don't need the money versus whatever you and I settle on regarding results, I'd pick the later.  Way have to give to subsidies to companies that don't need the money,  but right now I believe we've gotten way too carried away with that.

 

ok, but the two are often mutually inclusive because results give you money.

Edited April 26, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Die Hard]

10 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Exciting times!

 

 

Still the same talking points…. in chorus.

[The Evil Genius]

7. Elon has a small dick and a receding hairline. He's spent Joe Buck sums of money on hair plugs and his 85 children.

8. Elon is a draft dodger.

9. Elon owes the World Bank 6 billion.

10. Tesla autodrive wants to murder people.

 

Cmon Elon..don't censor us. 

Edited April 26, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[Ball Security]

18 hours ago, Forever A Redskin said:

To all those joking about Elon musk banning his critics...

 

Hard to argue with this approach. Why are people mad again?

 

What a great day for free speech and our democratic republic!

 

God Bless this beautiful country!

 

Hail to the Redskins

He literally offered to pay someone to end their account.

https://www.protocol.com/amp/elon-musk-flight-tracker-2656476191

Read it.  You claim to be a free speech absolutist.  Justify Musk’s attempt to silence free speech.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

18 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

7. Elon has a small dick and a receding hairline. He's spent Joe Buck sums of money on hair plugs and his 85 children.

8. Elon is a draft dodger.

9. Elon owes the World Bank 6 billion.

10. Tesla autodrive wants to murder people.

 

Cmon Elon..don't censor us. 

He will have second thoughts about this folly.

11 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

He literally offered to pay someone to end their account.

https://www.protocol.com/amp/elon-musk-flight-tracker-2656476191

Read it.  You claim to be a free speech absolutist.  Justify Musk’s attempt to silence free speech.

Offering someone money to end their account isn’t attempting to silence free speech in my opinion. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

 

 

[Dan T.]

1 hour ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Exciting times!

 

 

 

I actually thought he was being facetious. Nope.  MAGA chud running for Congress.

[Ball Security]

22 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

He will have second thoughts about this folly.

Offering someone money to end their account isn’t attempting to silence free speech in my opinion. 

You are not the one that is making a claim that a private company applying their TOS is stifling free speech.  So, respectfully, the question was not for you.  The poster I was replying to believes that there should be no censorship on Twitter or anywhere. He’s a “free speech absolutist”.  His term.  I want him to reconcile that to Musk, as an outsider, paying people not to post.

[Dan T.]

30 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Offering someone money to end their account isn’t attempting to silence free speech in my opinion. 

 

Ha. It was absolutely an attempt to stifle free speech.

[Die Hard]

59 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

7. Elon has a small dick and a receding hairline. He's spent Joe Buck sums of money on hair plugs and his 85 children.

8. Elon is a draft dodger.

9. Elon owes the World Bank 6 billion.

10. Tesla autodrive wants to murder people.

 

Cmon Elon..don't censor us. 

11. Elon doesn’t have autism. Show us the medical diagnosis!!! Where’s the medical consults?!

[Spaceman Spiff]

3 minutes ago, Die Hard said:

11. Elon doesn’t have autism. Show us the medical diagnosis!!! Where’s the medical consults?!

 

12. Elon isn't South African.  Show his birth certificate!

[Die Hard]

8 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

12. Elon isn't South African.  Show his birth certificate!

13. I heard that the new Tesla models to be released will be equipped with advanced abortion technology.

Edited April 26, 2022 by Die Hard

[Spaceman Spiff]

Just now, Die Hard said:

13. I heard that the new Tesla models to be released will equipped with advanced abortion technology.

 

14.  I heard that Elon is smuggling kids in the trunk of his new Tesla models to an underground railroad kidnapping scheme at a pizza shop in DC.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

44 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

You are not the one that is making a claim that a private company applying their TOS is stifling free speech.  So, respectfully, the question was not for you.  The poster I was replying to believes that there should be no censorship on Twitter or anywhere. He’s a “free speech absolutist”.  His term.  I want him to reconcile that to Musk, as an outsider, paying people not to post.

I understand, I was commenting generally.

42 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

Ha. It was absolutely an attempt to stifle free speech.

Money is the ultimate loud speaker.  
 

 

If you take money to shut up clearly you are saying the money is more important to you than whatever you are saying….