this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
44 points (90.7% liked)
Technology
60460 readers
5964 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So weird to say
We don't do that for other companies, and he hardly engineers anything at spacex
https://lemmy.world/post/23921992
Reuters is using the same kind of title.
Are they trying to say that Musk is the main worker at Starlink too?
yes
Hmm so even Reuters is in this cabal. This is concerning.
What's your point exactly?
Elon Musk owns this business so it's Elon Musk's SpaceX.
He is a famous personality no matter what people think about him.
Also Apple was never mentioned without Steve Jobs or Microsoft without Bill Gates.
People usually do not write Bill Gates's Microsoft or Steve Jobs's Apple
Musk has been trying to get as much publicity as possible it would seem. The media is probably participating because it’ll generate clicks from those who vehemently oppose him and those who worship him.
Idk, we affectionately say "Tim Apple."
I would argue they don't usually say it that way for Musk either so that's why I asked what your point was.
Also, I would appreciate not being downvoted because people assume I'm pro Musk. I'm not. I just try to understand why this sentence would trigger a comment like yours.
Do you imply that this article's sentence was that way to promote Musk? I just thought that since Musk is a prominent personality that is constantly on the news anyway there is nothing really surprising in presenting SpaceX as his business. Especially when it is his business.
OP said it's weird that they did and you seem to agree and give reasons why. I don't see the confusion.
OP says it's weird. I'm saying this might be unusual but doesn't really show any intent from the author beside saying Elon Musk owns spaceX.
I don't quite understand if OP thinks there is ulterior motive and if so what is it?
Elon Musk's spaceX seems like a neutral and factual way to present this information.
But I guess I will never know why this is weird. Nevermind.
I just found it odd to phrase it that way, as I find it's uncommon and it feels like it would place him as the main worker of that company. I don't know the intent of the author
OK thanks for the clarification.
I think it's very easy to find an "unusual" way to write something in any article as any author kind of has his own way to write but I understand what you mean.
Also my English is probably lacking in not being able to see that kind of nuance or what is really unusual.
I just thought that was the most straightforward way to convey that SpaceX is owned by Musk. Now the relevancy of this information in this article is another debate.
I thought Musk just spent a lot of his money on that business to own it and that it doesn't imply that he was taking part of engineering. I read Musk's bio a long time ago and my understanding was that he made much of his initial money through PayPal and then just bought businesses to add to his portfolio.
Also I would like to point out that even someone completely evil and with bad intentions can totally buy the right business and see it grow. So in now way I'm congratulating Musk or assuming he is the reason this business was successful. Trump had many very bad investments but still remained rich and powerful so it's not like there is a direct correlation of the two.
So Musk might be a total asshole, he is still the owner of SpaceX:
Elon Musk's SpaceX