>Here is the link of the article:
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-list-government-su...
Business Insider is well known for twisting things to fit their biases. Case in point, the first two items on that list are the equivalent of the government paying a pen company to provide them with pens after determining that said company was the best one to supply them.
Relating to SpaceX, the only 'real' subsidy there is the $15 million towards Boca Chica. Although they've paid twice that in donations to local schools there.
>You have to be curious about who are their customers
>https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/will-the-ukraine-war...
>The EU coming to subsidize them even more
Same here, they'd be paying for the service of launching a payload on a SpaceX rocket. Should SpaceX just not do business with governments? They happen to be one of the few people with a reliable rocket available right now that has a short enough lead time.
>And the fact that they are not profitable says it all
Again, dishonest take. They're building technologies with high setup costs, of course they aren't taking profits, they're taking all the money made from Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy and putting it back into Starship and Starlink.
Edit: Oh and of course none of the government money mentioned there accounts for the majority of their funding, which at the moment is largely driven by private funding rounds (because contrary to your biases, investors can see SpaceX's success and potential for even bigger successes) and previous F9 related profits.