Musk’s SpaceX says it can no longer pay for satellite services in Ukraine
cnn.com
cnn.com
Putting aside the costs, I'm curious how Musk reconciles giving critical support to the Ukrainian military with his apparent conviction that Russian victory is inevitable. If he truly believes that the threat of nuclear war increases the longer that Ukraine successfully defends itself, then it seems Musk would be keen a way to withdraw Starlink services from Ukraine.
What you're describing is the opposite-- a very entitled (and I daresay Narcissistic) interpretation of charity.
If you give a desperate man a dollar, you don't owe him the rest of your wallet.
Narcissism has many facets and takes many forms. It is not only narcissistic under those circumstances because it is also narcissistic when the victim is berated and scrutinized in order to make them more pliant to manipulation. This is counter-example strictly proving your rigid definition incorrect.
> a very entitled (and I daresay Narcissistic) interpretation of charity.
This is ad hominem fallacy. What I described is not charity, it is intentionally creating reliance in order to cause instability when support is removed, and it is common enough to have its own idiom: pulling the rug out from under them, meaning to suddenly take away important support.
> If you give a desperate man a dollar, you don't owe him the rest of your wallet.
This is the fallacy of weak analogy. Yet similarly if one gives someone $200/month for years, then a common law arrangement develops, and one then becomes responsible for continuing to provide that monthly support. If without justification that support is intentionally and permanently ended, one is guilty of willful desertion and/or criminal abandonment. The victim is not entitled to the rest of one's capital, only continued support upon which they have become reliant due to one's free actions.
Shaming Musk for not doing something he never agreed to do, to the detriment of his company, is itself manipulative and parasitic logic.
All the same, fuck Amazon for offering a limited-use free tier. After a few months of free EC2, we apparently have a common-law obligation under which they have to keep giving me free service forever?
That is not how charity works. You're redefining the terms of an informal arrangement in a way that most benefits you at someone else's expense-- literally Narcissistic behavior.
This is a straw man argument, as that was not my argument, and I was not shaming Musk. I was merely speculating:
>> Maybe Musk is applying variation on a theme, maybe he's just honest to goodness unreliable and irresponsible for getting involved. Maybe Musk isn't a narcissist. Maybe he's also a sociopath...
"Maybe" is salient here, meaning "there is the mere possibility that..."
> All the same, fuck Amazon for offering a limited-use free tier. After a few months of free EC2, we apparently have a common-law obligation under which they have to keep giving me free service forever?
Yet more straw man argument. How does Amazon enter into this?
> That is not how charity works.
Now your straw man has taken over. You introduced and claim this is charity, but I was describing something else entirely.
> You're redefining the terms of an informal arrangement in a way that most benefits you at someone else's expense-- literally Narcissistic behavior.
Still more straw man fallacy punctuated by ad hominem attack. If you can't comprehend and speak to my words, but only attack me, then your argument is fallacious and not worthy of being entertained other than to call it what it is, straw man arguments and personal insults.
Your average consumer doesn't have to worry about nation state hacking attacks, electronic warfare, and artillery strikes.
This gets especially important considering that businesses, militaries, and ships will already aggregate many users on a single link which means that with the aggregate traffic they'll already be using a higher proportion of the nominal bandwidth on average -- AND require higher guarantees for the service on top of it.
Dang, SpaceX is taking them to the cleaners.
Sure, maybe they should have. Maybe that would have been much better for them. They're grown ups, I'm sure they would make the right decision.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex...
> The largest single contributor of terminals, according to the newly obtained documents, is Poland with payment for almost 9,000 individual terminals.
https://twitter.com/j_jakobowski/status/1579889819010097154
>~11.7k out of 18k Starlink sets in were bought by Poland.
>6,7k by Polish government and 5k by Polish oil company Orlen
Elon posted a graph of the data usage in Ukraine here: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1580572380535001088
What’s unacceptable is that it’s discussed by him on Twitter and with his 108 million followers.
How can he be trusted with any more govt contracts if he is a blabbermouth?
Maybe there is no connection between all these events, but I'm a bit sceptical of that.
As far as I'm aware, this didn't "follow" but was actually the first event, predating the other by weeks.
I’m not a socialist, but SpaceX should be nationalized now. The capabilities that it provides cannot remain in the hands of its current majority owner. I’m happy to see it re-privatized, in the very near future, with ownership sold to more responsible, and less flighty, stewardship.
It makes absolutely no sense to say that this has "zero marginal costs". Internet connectivity for the ground stations has costs. Operation of the ground stations has costs. Supervision of the whole system has costs. Ongoing fighting of Russian countermeasures has costs. Ground stations and ground terminals even have opportunity costs -- possibly very large opportunity costs, considering the money the same hardware could be generating in rural US instead.
> I’m not a socialist
Good for you.
> but SpaceX should be nationalized now.
Now you are a socialist by definition. Congratulations. It started in my country in 1948 with large industrial concerns, then this trickled down all the way to self-employed people. You're at step 1 now.
If you want to debate the wisdom of the U.S. Defense Production Act (apologies, I do not know what country you live in, based on what you said about nationalization of your industries - but if you’re unfamiliar with that law, feel free to look up it, or I’m happy to give you a capsule description if you like - I assume you have something analogous where you live, or maybe even a stronger version of it based on what you said in your post) or “too big to fail” and how I think that implies the necessity of temporary nationalization under exigent circumstances, then those are topics we could probably have an interesting discussion about. I bet we’d have some interesting disagreements!
But I do think it was fairly clear that I wasn’t calling for perpetual public ownership of formerly private enterprise.
Sorry about what happened in your country. I think democracy is pretty great and regret that the threats to it are unceasing.
All the best conservatives have it
Reminds me of ISPs harassing netflix to pay extra in addition to the prices they charged their consumers
https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/24/5541916/netflix-deal-with...
Assumably something similar is happening to SpaceX's offering