"some things are so impossible they need to be stopped, now!
fine print: but we could probably pull it off if you abuse your state power to force SpaceX to share concrete designs with the competition (which includes us, Amazon)"
I'm not an Elon Musk fan, certainly not with his concept of ethics,... but I have similar qualms with nearly all people in positions of power, and most of them barely grasp elementary physics.
When people in power actually did and regularly redo their homework, it should be lauded, not punished.
There are plenty of criticisms to level at Elon, for example if humans and their governments really desire a future of safe self-driving vehicles, then Tesla (AND ITS COMPETITORS) ought to publish without censorship all the details, sensor readings, etc. leading up to each accident, near accident, sudden braking, etc. to the public domain, so that any startup, university, student etc. can train models which learn from every incident, instead of just the ones gathered by themselves. If safety of self-driving vehicles is the primary concern its essentially criminally negligent of governments not to force these datasets into the public domain. That would be a security and safety first minded approach that clearly highlights just one of my ethical disagreements with Elon.
But I don't allow my disdain for Elon to elevate above the human quest for veracity and facts.
Most executive people and people in positions of power have never studied physics or chemistry, and perfectly worthwhile ideas are constantly being rejected, simply because people in power can't discern the feasible from the infeasible.
False governance is about negotiating superficial agreements so different parties have the impression their concerns are taken into account, typically by the most ambiguous agreements that don't actually resolve conflict (it just moves the thinking to the courts).
True governance is about finding unambiguous statements that nearly everyone would agree on.
I think everyone can agree on the following statement:
To the extent that it is both feasible, and makes economic sense: it would be desirable to dump that waste heat straight to the CMB, instead of heating our surface waters, soils and atmosphere.
If Amazon truly believes SpaceX can not implement this, wouldn't it be in its interest to just watch SpaceX waste its resources for a decade? The fear for a monopoly is a straight-up admission that they think it could be possible after all, and make economic sense on top!
DoctorOetker•50m ago
fine print: but we could probably pull it off if you abuse your state power to force SpaceX to share concrete designs with the competition (which includes us, Amazon)"
I'm not an Elon Musk fan, certainly not with his concept of ethics,... but I have similar qualms with nearly all people in positions of power, and most of them barely grasp elementary physics.
When people in power actually did and regularly redo their homework, it should be lauded, not punished.
There are plenty of criticisms to level at Elon, for example if humans and their governments really desire a future of safe self-driving vehicles, then Tesla (AND ITS COMPETITORS) ought to publish without censorship all the details, sensor readings, etc. leading up to each accident, near accident, sudden braking, etc. to the public domain, so that any startup, university, student etc. can train models which learn from every incident, instead of just the ones gathered by themselves. If safety of self-driving vehicles is the primary concern its essentially criminally negligent of governments not to force these datasets into the public domain. That would be a security and safety first minded approach that clearly highlights just one of my ethical disagreements with Elon.
But I don't allow my disdain for Elon to elevate above the human quest for veracity and facts.
Most executive people and people in positions of power have never studied physics or chemistry, and perfectly worthwhile ideas are constantly being rejected, simply because people in power can't discern the feasible from the infeasible.
False governance is about negotiating superficial agreements so different parties have the impression their concerns are taken into account, typically by the most ambiguous agreements that don't actually resolve conflict (it just moves the thinking to the courts).
True governance is about finding unambiguous statements that nearly everyone would agree on.
I think everyone can agree on the following statement:
To the extent that it is both feasible, and makes economic sense: it would be desirable to dump that waste heat straight to the CMB, instead of heating our surface waters, soils and atmosphere.
If Amazon truly believes SpaceX can not implement this, wouldn't it be in its interest to just watch SpaceX waste its resources for a decade? The fear for a monopoly is a straight-up admission that they think it could be possible after all, and make economic sense on top!