Hacker News Reader

Comment by obblekk | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if Elon is distracting people from the issue: can you go into an office, openly announce to everyone your boss is a terrible human being who should be denounced, and reasonably expect to keep your job?

Workers should have the right to improve their working conditions, but not to hate on coworkers. Be they bosses or subordinates.

Regardless, the unconstitutional part is this decision is like an illegally created new law - it essentially carries the weight of law, can only be appealed to the people who made the law, and was never debated or voted by democratically elected reps.

View on HN

SpaceX should have their federal contracts pulled (>$1B) to put his power trip in check. Certainly, challenge the system if you feel wronged, but don't be surprised when the system pushes back.

The executive branch has made their position on labor rights known [1] [2], take government dollars away from bad faith actors if they must.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

I’d rather live in a society where companies can challenge the system without threat of shutdown.

Imagine how the other side would use the power to make contract decisions based on political loyalty.

We want different things, and Elon believes himself accountable to no one and desires absolute unelected power. See you at the voting booth, I want people like him kept in check until gone. I am willing to compromise a bit on governance out of pragmatism considering how people like him will use any bugs or loopholes in systems to achieve their desired outcome, crushing anyone along the way who they believe impedes said outcome.

Like Oracle [1], don't be mad at the lawnmower. It's just a lawnmower. Protect yourself from it, because it doesn't care who it hurts [2]. Elon believes empathy is a weakness, for example. It's like trying to negotiate with a Great White shark. You're gonna have a bad time. I'm advocating for a cage to protect us, not the shark. Let the shark be the shark while minimizing the harm it causes.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5170246

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38127745

> Elon believes himself accountable to no one and desires absolute unelected power

From your own link in the other comment, it looks like Musk wants the exact opposite?

> Isaacson explained that Musk's decision stemmed from his desire to distance himself from any involvement in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

> However, the situation has taken a turn, with Musk now choosing to hand over both terminals and control to the United States Army. In a candid conversation with Isaacson, Musk expressed his concern about being inadvertently drawn into a war, stating that his primary intent with Starlink was to provide people with entertainment, not to contribute to a potential nuclear conflict.

Was done after Congress called for an investigation.

https://spacenews.com/senate-armed-services-committee-to-pro...

> SASC Chairman Jack Reed: ‘Neither Elon Musk, nor any private citizen, can have the last word when it comes to U.S. national security’

> Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters this week that he was not familiar with the terms of SpaceX’s agreement with Ukraine but noted that any company that signs a contract with DoD, including one run by a powerful billionaire, would be expected to comply with the terms of that contract.

> Reed in the statement Sept. 14 said “serious national security liability issues have been exposed and the committee is engaged on this issue.”

https://apnews.com/article/spacex-ukraine-starlink-russia-ai... ("Elon Musk’s refusal to have Starlink support Ukraine attack in Crimea raises questions for Pentagon")

https://spacenews.com/limits-on-ukraines-use-of-starlink-for... ("Limits on Ukraine’s use of Starlink for war operations is a lesson for U.S. military")

~40 percent of SpaceX 2023 revenue was Starlink, and of StarLink revenue, the DoD is somewhere around 8%.

So Musk saw that call and on the same day transferred control to the DoD? Doesn't make any sense.

> SpaceX’s president Gwynne Shotwell said last month that the company did not intend for Starlink to be “weaponized.” [1]

At the same time, they are selling StarLink specifically as a next gen data platform in military aircraft for the last five years, on a variety of US DoD military aircraft platforms [2] [3]. So it's weaponized sometimes but it isn't? This is either "what is the definition of is" or cleaning up with PR what Elon directed at the time.

Elon used the fact that the arrangement was fluid around the Ukraine service delivery to push his will, and the US Gov had to tighten the leash in response (my comment above your reply to this comment). It is not good when a congressional committee rep uses the words “serious national security liability issues" to describe your actions.

[1] https://spacenews.com/shotwell-ukraine-weaponized-starlink-i... ("Shotwell: Ukraine “weaponized” Starlink in war against Russia")

[2] https://maxpolyakov.com/hidden-military-potential-of-starlin... ("The USAF decided to test the new satellite internet first. Tests of the technology started immediately after SpaceX signed the contract for it in 2019. First, the Air Force successfully tested internet connection on a slower twin-engine aircraft, the Beechcraft C-12 Huron. During the test flight with the Starlink terminal, the data transfer rate was 610 Mbps. Later that year, satellite communications were evaluated for the larger Lockheed AC-130. Later on, modern fighter aviation was also connected to the project. Starlink tests in March-April 2022 took place on the fifth-generation supersonic the F-35A Lightning II fighter jet, whose maximum speed reaches 1906 km/h (850 km/h at cruising speed).")

[3] https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-satellite-internet-m... | https://www.spacex.com/starshield/

> So it's weaponized sometimes but it isn't? This is either "what is the definition of is" or cleaning up with PR what Elon directed at the time.

One can be comfortable with weaponization by their own country of things that are specifically sold to the military for military use, and be uncomfortable with a foreign country weaponizing things that were sold for civilian use. What is wrong with wanting to leave that decision to their own countries' political and military leadership?

> It is not good when a congressional committee rep uses the words “serious national security liability issues" to describe your actions

This is way overblown, members of congress say things all the times for PR purposes that amount to nothing in the long run, for example the recent iMessage blocking by Apple, four members called it out, and yet Apple just ignored them.

And they are going to give these contracts to whom? Russia?, ULA?, Just not launch their payloads?

Unfortunately if the us.gov wants to send people to space there are almost no options.

I'm not arguing to nationalize SpaceX yet, that's a bridge too far at this point. But there are lots of points of leverage between here and there. Elon appears to be very emotional and driven to make irrational decisions in certain circumstances (Twitter). I believe, under the right circumstances, the case could be made that he is no longer able to retain control of an org with nation state launch and global satellite comms capabilities. The DoD was able to gain some authority over a part of Starlink after the Ukraine events [1].

If you look at the history of the United States government, I think it is fairly obvious the force they can apply when desired, to everyone from individuals to other nation states. I'm not arguing what event would trigger a cascade of authority transfer, simply that it can be done. A corporation is a shared delusion; if the government walks in and takes control under national security interests, you are going to have limited recourse.

[1] https://www.defensemirror.com/news/34998/Pentagon_Acquires_C...

That seems pretty inconsistent with his belief in free speech absolutism. Not to mention, that employees are not stating "boohoo I hate my boss" they are saying (very appropriately) that he is harming the company by causing disrepute.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com