this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
437 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

59377 readers
4289 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (4 children)

When Musk cut off Ukraine, the Pentagon informed him that they were immediately purchasing a minor controlling stake in the, currently, private company. Service to Ukraine was restored the next day.

That's how "capitalism" works apparently.

I also assume that's why NVidia did it's sudden about face and fell right in line when the generals threatened to own them the next day.

It's all just rich people getting reminded they're only rich, or alive, because the government allows them to be.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm honestly at a loss with trying to discern whether you just honestly don't understand the situation and how corporations/defense contractors and government work, if you're unwittingly repeating a source of intentional disinformation, or if you're actually maliciously trying to pump some counterfactual narrative.

I think it's a mixture of the first two, which is unfortunate because the word count that is required to correct all of that bad information is a lot more then I'm willing to type out on my phone screen.

So, I'll just point out you can either own a controlling interest, or a minor stake, but the two are mutually exclusive, and at no point was either on the table for purchase from the Pentagon.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 2 points 11 months ago

I don't know that Iridium is still working. I think it's been decommissioned. But, the US military has been looking for its replacement for years. Now, they could launch their own, or buy a network. Musk not getting RUS funds and losing a thousand satellites from orbit a year makes Starlink a prime candidate.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 2 points 11 months ago

Jesus, the absolute state of misinformation in your post...

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

They didn't cut off Internet to Ukraine. They had to stop the military from using it in an offensive way, which is ITAR, it wasn't even musk who pulled the plug, it was a bunch of lawyers that had to make that call.

[–] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Musk doesn't listen to lawyers, look at everything he has done at Twitter.

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago

You're right. He got that advice from Mohamed bin Salman.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Starlink is a defense contractor, ITAR was bullshit reasoning and not at all applicable. That's like saying Raytheon missiles can't be used to attack foreign targets, because ITAR, or even more accurately, Ukrainian munitions with American IC's or copper can't be used.

But that guy's comments about "the generals bought a minor stake the next day" is also just as full of shit.

Actually, no, his comments about generals buying stakes was actually more bullshit, because at least that ITAR garbage had mainstream traction, so I at least understand why someone would believe it.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The fuck are you talking about starlink is not a defense contractor... it's like saying Microsoft is a defense contractor because the military uses windows...ITAR was absolutely in play here...

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Starlink was not sold or provided to Ukraine under a defense contract.... defense contractors who are labeled as such do not typically work with the public directly. You're definition of a defense contractor apparently is any company who has worked on a DOJ or DOD bid....which means basically all companies in the USA. This doesn't magically make them not have to follow civilian regulations. ITAR is in play here, just because starlink has defense contracts, doesn't magically give them a pass on other regulations.

Cereal companies get defense contracts FFS...that doesn't make them a defense contractor.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Why would working a DOJ bid make a company a defense contractor..?

JFC...you might actually need a reeducation camp, but instead of propaganda, it's just a forced repeat of K-12 education.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You do know what the NSD is right? You put your foot in your mouth...easier to take the L...

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You mean the lawyers who coordinate national security related legal issues with law enforcement and intelligence? Yep, sure do, still doesn't make them part of the military.

I'd say it's easier to take the L, but I understand you lack the self-awareness of your stupidity.

Honestly, you're the clearest example of Dunning-Kruger I've seen in quite a while. For that, I'm sorry.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Forgot that DHS and the national guard aren't military....

You keep thinking that military contacts magically make a company a defense contractor and that they don't have to follow the laws...the only reason you're upset is because you are so far up the musk hate trains ass you can't disassociate yourself from it.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Continuing to dunk on you feels like I'm abusing a special needs child, so I'm just going to retroactively agree with everything you've said, or ever will say.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)