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