strategic ambiguity
5,326 karma · joined August 22, 2013
I can’t help but feel this is a superficial defense of Musk as a proxy for defending the drugs.
The moment Elon denies doing cocaine, he is then subject to blackmail. Everyone on the board knows he does hard drugs, so now he can be exploited.
It’s that simple.
If I know you’re lying, I can manipulate you.
Did we forget that Jared Kushner couldn’t get a security clearance because of his financial black hole?
again, ANYONE else doesn’t pass security clearances over this.
And you’re blaming Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper for this? This isn’t Gawker, FYI.
People get security clearances pulled over this.
People are VERY easy to blackmail.
Again, if you deny or lie about it, you essentially self-blackmail.
Read the article:
>"Illegal drug use would likely be a violation of federal policies that could jeopardize SpaceX’s billions of dollars in government contracts. Musk is intrinsic to the value of his companies, potentially putting at risk around $1 trillion in assets held by investors, tens of thousands of jobs and big parts of the U.S. space program...In addition to violating federal contracts, any kind of illegal drug use would break company policies at both SpaceX and Tesla, and would raise questions about Musk’s executive role at the publicly traded Tesla, where the board has a duty to shareholders to oversee management.”
Elon is taking federal contractor funds, a very serious deal, and doing cocaine and more with it.
He’s a literal national security threat.
If Elon even denies it (because lets be honest, everything in this story has multiple verification, is repeated from different sources and is consistent with Musk’s own behavior), it creates opportunity for blackmail or worse.
None of which ever really challenged her work overall or conclusions or points she substantiated. Which should be the total point.
I hope you don’t think that’s all whats happening, right?
>LLM training is a special type of reading that should be considered infringement
OK, what turn of phrase would you prefer?
2. Authors should be sued by interested parties for withholding information, even if the case gets thrown out but just to annoy them for using salacious facts for book sales.
It's the dumbest thing to lie about.
Warren is functionally aware of how to enact policy, not just advocate a bullet point list of wishes.
Whether this goes anywhere, is a different story.
What makes it low quality if he's deserving of ridicule?