I mean I despise Trump and Putin more, but I’m not sure if any public figure has ever irritated me as much Musk.
What gave it away? Was it the fact that he had to be forced into it through a legal order after a successful lawsuit against him?
I’m actually more surprised by this bit:
I mean didn’t you spend paragraphs upon paragraphs talking about Elmo’s ‘contributions’ to Ukraine with Starlink and his backpedaling after his public suggestion that the Pentagon should be paying him for his ‘contributions’ met with vast public criticism? And then ignore or downplay Elmo having Starlink bill the Pentagon after the outrage died down?
Now you’re calling him a defense contractor? /Scratches head.
Oh, and the imagery you evoke is that of a villain in a James Bond movie, not one associated with any defense contractor trope I’ve ever heard of.
I’m not the one who alleged buying Twitter was part of a larger pre-existing scheme. This makes little sense for the reason I said, even if you should want to be snarky.
Elon likely did make some genuine contributions to Ukraine with Starlink, in terms of important things like hospitals and education, private family communications of people suffering attack and displacement, allowing distribution of evidence of atrocities and so garnering needed global support, some military defence issues, etc. This must certainly be weighed against unacceptably offering to intervene on Russian terms, his role in preventing a drone attack or other responses, and rosy rationalizations of this.
But it is true many smart people were concerned about involving NATO directly in a conflict, as well as use of Russian nuclear weapons, even if some or all of this amounted to sabre rattling. I don’t think it was wrong for Musk to involve the United States government rather than make foreign policy or military decisions in isolation. And if additional work was necessary, I am sure many companies would seek compensation or contracts. Although Musk is exceedingly wealthy, and could certainly have been more charitable, I do not fault him for this per se to the degree some other posters here do, if the terms were fair and reasonable and similar to industry standards - which I am unable to judge. Did most other big companies (not the government) offer goods and services without charge (which would certainly weaken Musk’s position)? I never denied he became a defence contractor, clearly he did. Was this preplanned? I’m not convinced. Perhaps some defence executives are Blofelds, perhaps others are blowhards. Not my circus, not my monkeys, not my monkeys who came back from space super-intelligent. “We won’t be telling them THAT.”
Also ridiculous that US support for Ukraine is threatened by these pointless and false debt ceiling melodramas.
Welcome to the US Legislature.
He did? Important things like hospitals, education, private communications for those suffering attack and displacement? Where are those millions of dollars in pocket change he gave to humanitarian charities that carry out those efforts? I mean millions are pocket change to him, he’s the wealthiest man on the planet. Starlink did not give aid in some defense issues. That has been overwhelmingly by far its primary use. It is a secure communications platform ‘donated’ to a nation in a war for its very existence. That it was and is primarily to the point of almost exclusively used by the Ukrainian military for military matters is hardly surprising to anyone but those who willingly buy into Elmo’s horseshit about him donating it to help with homework and fucking. Or banking and hospitals. Or communications between private individuals whose homes have been destroyed or occupied by the invading Russians, or whatever bullshit Elmo is peddling this particular day.
Smart people weren’t concerned about NATO getting directly involved, because that was never going to happen. Nobody in any position of importance in the NATO command structure or in a government in a member of NATO has even suggested the idea. All of Russia’s saber rattling about nuclear weapons is just that, saber rattling to remind the world that they have them, as if anyone could actually forget that Russia has the world’s largest nuclear stockpile. It is also of zero use to Russia in this conflict. The only people who have considered this as anything other than a very poor and obvious bluff are either delusional or supportive of Russia.
Well, that’s nice of you. What would be nicer is if you stopped looking at things from 20,000 feet and came back down here to reality. Musk has absolutely no place in making either foreign policy or military decisions on the behalf of anyone, anywhere. Last I checked, he doesn’t hold a position in the US or any other countries government, elected or otherwise.
If the news orgs care about Twitter anymore, it would not be all that difficult to start embedding the headlines into images. Heck, with a bit more work, you could have the altered image only show when loaded by Twitter.
Though, of course, the easier solution for users is just to include the headline themselves in text. Heck, maybe someone will automate that with an extension. (Though they’d need to care more than I do.)
Oh, and since googling ‘humanitarian aid to Ukraine’ seems to be too difficult for you:
Why the snark? I’ve personally donated thousands of dollars to humanitarian aid in Ukraine. I’ve never used Twitter. I’m not saying Musk doesn’t deserve opinion based on the facts. I am not in a position to say if he deserves credit for keeping digital access open at a time it was under intense cyberattack. But there are reasons a deal was reached, so obviously his services were beneficial to someone. Is it impossible, no chance at all, the Russians may use excessive weapons out of spite or poor planning, but gen if this is poor strategy? Should nuclear weapons be completely ignored by experienced decision makers, not considered at all? If you agree, I’ll sleep that much better tonight… but the Russians have already seemed very reckless with regard to existing plants providing various forms of power.
Let’s accept your Wiki page as completely accurate. You have enormous multinational conglomerates who have donated a very small percentage of their corporate profits. American Express and Bank of America (not to pick on them) donated $1m, with tax and publicity considerations and matching (which may or may not mean all the amount was donated depending on specifics); many huge companies far less. Of course, there are not obliged to give anything, in theory, and many might have helped in myriad other ways. Might these companies also have profited in some way? I don’t know.
There are many things that Musk does that I don’t like, but you are holding him to a higher standard than the corporations you list and laud. Might be some valid reasons for this, but there is another side to the argument and I have presented it neutrally. If you agree Musk shouldn’t be conducting foreign or military policy, and he shouldn’t, he did the right thing by approaching the US Government and working out a mutually acceptable deal provided it was reasonable, which again I could not say.
I’d like to see both Musk and other corporations step up. Say what they think about attempts to stop Ukrainian aid, do more now that it is (and will continue to be) difficult, instead of trendy, and make their influence on political parties manifest. The reality is many, certainly not all, have given pocket change even if their hearts and minds are in the right place.
Excerpt
There was a time, not that long ago, when the United States presumed to teach the world how it was done. When it held itself up as a model of a stable, predictable democracy. When it sent idealistic young avatars to distant parts of the globe to impart the American way.
These days, to many watching at home and abroad, the American way no longer seems to offer a case study in effective representative democracy. Instead, it has become an example of disarray and discord, one that rewards extremism, challenges norms and threatens to divide a polarized country even further.
The Republican uprising that led to the ouster of a House speaker for the first time in American history would be enough of a disruption. But the upheaval on Capitol Hill comes as a former president sits in a New York courtroom, already judged to be a fraud, while using increasingly violent language and pushing the limits of a gag order. At the same time, military aid to stop Russian invaders in Ukraine has been held up by a vocal G.O.P. minority in Congress, and another government shutdown looms next month.
The institutions that were already strained during Donald J. Trump’s presidency now face a series of profound stress tests….
And not to monopolize a thread, but this is why Musk and the contributors need to keep going. (Note: will not continue along this line except as it specifically relates to the thread topic.)
Excerpt
In retrospect, Russia’s most successful campaign of the war has been what could be called its “great escalation bluff.” Perhaps because the Russians realize how vulnerable they are to long-range fire, they have always implied that giving Ukraine greater reach could lead to a broadening of hostilities, even a nuclear response. As the muted reaction to the attacks on Sevastopol in September has shown, this rhetoric was empty—a desperate ploy to dissuade the West from properly arming Ukraine.
… Helping Ukraine win the war as quickly as possible is imperative. It’s also the best way to limit future destruction and casualties. Yet the combination of Russian nuclear threats and the West’s outdated visions of major tank breakthroughs has put Ukraine in a difficult position. Because frontal assaults are so dangerous and vehicles are so vulnerable to attack, the Ukrainians have been proceeding on foot, undertaking an infantry-based campaign that could continue all autumn and even into the winter. The more that Western allies prioritize long-range weapons, the more Ukraine can wear down Russian resistance and take back its own territory.
Here is a link returning to basics.
Is there any specific part of this summary you believe to be inaccurate?
Elmo’s latest smashing of his own dick in the door of a Cybertruck is continuing to go well.
Some replies to Musk:
IOW, those 5 people have the utterly mistaken notion that X/twitter is supposed to deliver value to the audience.
Demonstrating their delusion in public is not a good look. The audience is / are not the people who get value from X/twitter. Pre-Musk that was the celeb creators and now it’s Musk alone. As always, the audience are the product.
These folks are bitching about bugs that are really features.