Absolutely agree with this but there is no denying the innovation levels at spacex are higher
Undeniably, they've been doing amazing work (at least from my rocketry technology peasant point of view).
They landed people on the moon and then did fuck all for decades.
Indeed, all i was saying is that they were capable given budget and circumstances.
That budget and direction comes from the government.
When Musk started SpaceX he was not well known yet, SpaceX came before Tesla.
I will admit, i thought spacex was just another company he bought his way in to, like tesla, seems i was mistaken about that.
He was able to get into the businesses he has because he was rich yes, but you can find many accounts of engineers that worked under him speak of how good he was at finding ways to cut unnecessary costs.
And you can equally find many accounts of having to distract him from the day to day operations because he's unreliable , unpredictable and chaotic (none of those meant in a good way).
He's also known for buying good press and using litigation to silence people.
He’s not a technical genius that’s for sure. But he has been a good CEO for SpaceX.
I doubt this, but that could just be bias, i don't have any actual evidence of the long term impact of him as CEO.
Recently though, he's provably been significantly more of a liability than a benefit, even if just from a PR and public sentiment point of view.
But I refuse to simply wave away his achievements simply because I don’t like him. I can not like someone and still acknowledge they have done something good.
Indeed, i push back on the myth that he's some self made tony stark genius, but it isn't like he's not achieved anything.
I would personally attribute most of that to neptoism, wealth, luck and opportunity, but that doesn't remove the achievement itself.
You mean the NASA who landed people on the moon?
So let's assume you aren't a moon landing denier and use that as a baseline, NASA is clearly capable of things given the right circumstances and budget.
SpaceX benefited from his reputation and money, because they sure as shit didn't benefit from his technical acumen.
Business wise he is successful because he's rich and influential and that works to mitigate how shitty he is at actually running an organisation, that doesn't mean he has skills as a business person that means he has money and influence, in his case originally from the mine, then from buying and bullying his was in to businesses that were technologically sound and boosting them with his money.
You could make an argument he's a relatively good investor, but he's an actively bad CEO.
I see this argument a lot and it entirely glosses over the fact that the market is at least one order of magnitude larger, possibly two.
The cost of a game is the development, marketing, maintenance to some degree and in some cases physical production of the medium.
Past that it's gravy.
You charge 70 in the 1990's times 100,000 sales vs charging 70 now to a million sales.
It's not like producing a car where you have a fixed unit cost, this is mostly copying already made data.
Yes, the tertiary costs can go up and the development costs can go up but the addressable market has also gone up significantly.
Nintendo specifically is absolutely not living release to release and is the worst possible example for this argument.
Not only do they not really do sales but they also have DLC all the way up the wazoo and frequently rerelease old games at current market prices, with minor tweaks.
They do not, however, lean all the way in to microtransactions, which is nice
Small bit of relative truth mixed with hypocrisy, dog-whistle, complaint, misunderstanding of word, misunderstanding of concept of voting population.
You hit all the highlights, personally i'd have gone with more dogwhistles, maybe something to do with immigrants ?
A solid 8/10 shitpost.
Vast means large btw, as in big.
"News outlet" might be the most generous interpretation I've ever seen.
To me this reads as:
< preemptive justification for saying something controversial and/or indefensible >
< controversial statement with no justification or reasoning >
"Not going to explain because it's obvious"
Probably not how it was intended, but that's some weak sauce
Leaving out details is also bias. Especially when those details are pertinent to the subject being reported on.
That he was talking about state policies could arguably be said to warrant including politics based details of the situation. Him being a failed presidential candidate and attending said event with a representatives of an anti-government extremist group would probably qualify for that.
The difference between:
Man speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota's
vs
Man known for previously running on a platform of meat-quota deregulation. speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota's, surrounded by meat industry lobbyists.
Yes, the second one sounds more negative, but that's not necessarily bias.
I'm having trouble parsing this so i might be commenting on something that isn't there.
Current edge is a chrome re-skin with some addons, I'd put good money on it not being google free.
If you care about data going to nefarious places you probably shouldn't be using either.
Blocking someone because they don't agree with you telling them they are "absolutely wrong" isn't civil or rational discourse. Unless you meant something different?
"I would like to increase my visibility for "branding" purposes so i'm going to say something that is probably reasonable but i'm going to do it in a misrepresented absolutist way, purposely ignoring any nuance, so as to be as divisive as possible to get those sweet sweet clicks."
It's the linked-in way.