#was that like part of elon's contract

[maxknightley]

What if there was a cyborg girl, but, like, she's a bad first-generation kind? Her cyber arms are no longer supported because the cyborg tech start up ran out of funds before getting a super soldier contract with the military, so it's only a matter of time before they break and nothing current is compatable. Her very mind has a computer virus because it's Elon's brain chip that makes her like all of his tweets and watch commercials like they're TV shows.

I think it says a lot about me that the single factor that shifts this from "that's hot" to "I desperately need to Fix Her" is the part about liking Elon's tweets.

#ask #anon

[thepastisalreadywritten]

The United States has returned to the lunar surface for the first time in more than 50 years after a privately-built spacecraft named Odysseus capped a nail-biting 73-minute descent from orbit with a touchdown near the moon’s south pole.

Amid celebrations of what NASA hailed “a giant leap forward,” there was no immediate confirmation of the status or condition of the lander, other than it had reached its planned landing site at crater Malapert A.

But later Intuitive Machines, the Texas-based company that built the first commercial craft to land on the moon, said the craft was “upright and starting to send data.”

The statement on X said mission managers were “working to downlink the first images from the lunar surface.”

The so-called “soft landing” on Thursday, which Steve Altemus, the company’s founder, had given only an 80% chance of succeeding, was designed to open a new era of lunar exploration as NASA works towards a scheduled late-2026 mission to send humans back there.

“Welcome to the moon,” Altemus said when touchdown when the 5.23pm touchdown was eventually confirmed, after about 10 minutes in which Odysseus was out of contact.

It was the first time any US-built spacecraft had landed on the moon since NASA’s most recent crewed visit, the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972, and the first visit by commercial vehicle following last month’s failure of Peregrine One, another partnership between the space agency and a private company, Astrobotic.

“Today, for the first time in more than a half century, the US has returned to the moon. Today, for the first time in the history of humanity, a commercial company, an American company, launched and led the voyage up there,” Bill Nelson, the NASA administrator, said.

“What a triumph. Odysseus has taken the moon. This feat is a giant leap forward for all of humanity.”

There was no video of Odysseus’s fully autonomous descent, which slowed to about 2.2mph at 33ft above the surface.

But a camera built by students at Florida’s Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University was designed to fall and take pictures immediately before touchdown, and NASA cameras were set to photograph the ground from the spacecraft.

The 14ft (4.3 metres) hexagonal, six-legged Nova-C lander, affectionately nicknamed Odie by Intuitive Machines employees, is part of NASA’s commercial lunar payload services (CLPS) initiative in which the agency awards contracts to private partners, largely to support the Artemis program.

NASA contributed $118m to get it off the ground, with Intuitive Machines funding a further $130m ahead of its February 15 launch from Florida’s Kennedy Space Center on a Falcon 9 rocket from Elon Musk’s SpaceX company.

The IM-1 mission, like the doomed Peregrine effort, is carrying a payload of scientific equipment designed to gather data about the lunar environment, specifically in the rocky region chosen as the landing site for NASA’s crewed Artemis III mission planned for two years’ time.

It is a hazardous area – “pockmarked with all of these craters,” according to Nelson – but chosen because it is believed to be rich in frozen water that could help sustain a permanent lunar base crucial to future human missions to Mars.

Scientists announced last year that they believed tiny glass beads strewn across the moon’s surface contained potentially “billions of tonnes of water” that could be extracted and used on future missions.

The risks are worth it, Nelson told CNN on Thursday, “to see if there is water in abundance. Because if there’s water, there’s rocket fuel: hydrogen, and oxygen. And we could have a gas station on the south pole of the moon.”

The planned operational life of the solar powered lander is only seven days, before the landing site about 186 miles from the moon’s south pole moves into Earth’s shadow.

But NASA hopes that will be long enough for analysis of how soil there reacted to the impact of the landing.

Other instruments will focus on space weather effects on the lunar surface, while a network of markers for communication and navigation will be deployed.

“Odysseus, powered by a company called Intuitive Machines, launched upon a SpaceX rocket, carrying a bounty of NASA scientific instruments, is bearing the dream of a new adventure in science, innovation, and American leadership in space,” Nelson said.

Through Artemis, NASA’s return-to-the-moon program that also has longer-term visions of crewed missions to Mars within the next two decades, the US seeks to stay ahead of Russia and China, both of which are planning their own human lunar landings.

Only the US has previously landed astronauts in six Apollo missions between 1969 and 1972, while five countries have placed uncrewed spacecraft there.

Japan joined the US, Russia, China, and India last month when its Smart Lander for Investigating the Moon (Slim) made a successful, if awkward touchdown after a three-month flight.

Two further Intuitive Machines launches are scheduled for later this year, including an ice drill to extract ingredients for rocket fuel, and another Nova-C lander containing a small Nasa rover and four small robots that will explore surface conditions.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/22/us-moon-landing-odysseus-intuitive-machines

US returns to lunar surface with for first time in over 50 years

23 February 2024

A spacecraft built and flown by Texas-based company Intuitive Machines landed near the south pole of the moon, the first US touchdown on the lunar surface in more than half a century, and the first ever achieved entirely by the private sector.

Communication with Odysseus seemed be lost during the final stages of the landing, leaving mission control uncertain as to the precise condition and position of the lander, according to flight controllers heard in the webcast.

US returns to lunar surface for first time in over 50 years: ‘Welcome to the moon.’

#Odysseus #Intuitive Machines #Youtube #NASA #Malapert A #moon #moon landing #spacecraft #Steve Altemus #lunar exploration #Bill Nelson #Nova-C lander #Odie #commercial lunar payload services (CLPS) #Artemis #Kennedy Space Center #Falcon 9 #Elon Musk #SpaceX #IM-1 mission #Smart Lander for Investigating the Moon (SLIM) #lunar lander #earth

[mariacallous]

Out of 8 billion people on the planet, there are only 16 million Jews—but far, far more anti-Semites. I sometimes joke that if I had fewer scruples, I wouldn’t report on anti-Jewish prejudice; I’d contract myself out to the more numerous and better-resourced bigots, and help them get away with it. Because in more than a decade covering anti-Semitism, I have become a reluctant expert in all the ways that anti-Jewish activists obfuscate their hate.

People must learn to recognize and reject these tactics, because too many communities have developed ways to excuse or otherwise ignore anti-Semitism. Today, such prejudice is growing in high and low places because powerful people around the world are running the same playbook to launder their hate into the public sphere.

Here’s how they do it:

1. They become too big to fail. Over the past six months, Elon Musk has publicly affirmed the deadliest anti-Semitic conspiracy theory in recent American history, claimed that Jews and Jewish organizations cause anti-Semitism, and echoed extremist conspiracy theories about the Jewish financier George Soros. As a result, the billionaire has lost a few advertisers on his social-media platform, and even got rapped by the White House. But as The New York Times reported, even as the U.S. government criticized Musk, it continued to buy things from him.

In fact, in recent months, Musk has raked in Pentagon cash, including more than $1 billion in exchange for launching spy satellites and other intelligence assets into orbit through his lucrative space-exploration venture, SpaceX. In September, days after Musk attacked the Anti-Defamation League and suggested that Jews cause anti-Semitism, he met with a bipartisan group of senators to discuss artificial intelligence. The magnate subsequently signed a deal worth up to $70 million to provide the U.S. government with a secure satellite communications system. “Rarely has the U.S. government so depended on the technology provided by a single technologist,” the Times wrote. Meanwhile, diverse actors ranging from the ADL to Representative Ilhan Omar keep advertising on Musk’s social-media site, his rich friends continue to defend him, and, last week, he was featured at a Times event.

Musk has similarly been wooed by Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government, who—like Ukraine’s leadership—want to stay on the entrepreneur’s good side so that he doesn’t use technology like his Starlink satellite internet to harm their war efforts. Precisely because Musk plays a leading role in so many industries that are essential to humanity’s future—electric vehicles, artificial intelligence, space technology—no country can quit him, not even one as powerful as the United States or as Jewish as Israel. Likewise, no matter how many dinners Donald Trump has with anti-Semites such as Ye (formerly Kanye West) and Holocaust deniers such as Nick Fuentes, he will not be penalized for it by Republicans, because he is too essential to their party to be discarded.

This characteristic is what separates the big-league bigots who get away with it from those who don’t. Ye’s mistake was that he invested his talents in producing music and sneakers rather than something more indispensable to human flourishing, such as precision-guided ballistic missiles.

2. They don’t say the quiet part out loud. Those who want to fulminate about the Jews but lack the singular clout of Elon Musk still have plenty of options. They just need to be slightly more subtle about their prejudice. Take Tucker Carlson, once the most-watched man on cable news, who used his show to popularize a sanitized version of the same “Great Replacement” theory that Musk recently endorsed, which posits that Jewish elites are plotting to supplant the white race through the mass immigration of brown people. This white-supremacist fantasy motivated the 2018 massacre of worshippers at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue, among other recent attacks. How did Carlson get such an unhinged idea on television? He repeated the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory—“They’re trying to change the population of the United States, and they hate it when you say that because it’s true, but that’s exactly what they’re doing”—but left out the word Jews and let the audience fill in the blank.

This time-honored technique provides even the most pointed prejudice with plausible deniability. In particular, whenever you see politicians or celebrities darkly ruminating about an amorphous “they” covertly controlling events, chances are good that you are seeing this strategy in action. Consider Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has led Turkey, a member of NATO, since 2003. In 2014, he began darkly referring to a “mastermind” behind the country’s ills:

Don’t be misled. Don’t think that these operations are against my persona, our government, our party. Friends, these operations are rather directed against Turkey itself—its unity, its peace, its economy, its independence. And as I have said before, behind all these steps there is a mastermind. People ask me, “Who is this mastermind?” Well, you have to figure that out. And actually, you know what it is.

Erdoğan was not talking about the Amish. His allies subsequently produced a movie titled The Mastermind, which aired on pro-government TV stations and helpfully opened with an image of a Star of David. “At every stage,” the Turkish commentator Mustafa Akyol wrote at the time, “the film reminds us how the Judaic ‘mastermind’ has oppressed humanity for thousands of years.” As Erdoğan has consolidated his essentially unchecked power, he has become more forthright in his anti-Semitism, and faced no international consequences.

3. They replace Jew with Zionist. In 1934, Representative Louis McFadden of Pennsylvania took to the floor of Congress to complain about Jewish control of the American financial system. “Is it not true,” he bemoaned, “that, in the United States today, the gentiles have the slips of paper while the Jews have the gold?” Today, this sort of rhetoric is frowned upon in polite society, but aspiring anti-Semites have a work-around: substituting each instance of Jews with Zionists or Israelis. Then: The Jews control the world. Now: The Zionists control the world.

With this simple switch, prejudice magically becomes mere criticism of Israel. Social-media companies won’t moderate it, and many activists will defend it. People can even make their anti-Semitic argument live on CNN, as Pakistan’s foreign minister did in 2021, when he claimed that Israel controls the media. In this manner, an ancient conspiracy theory is updated to appeal to partisans in the 21st century, many of whom will insist that they don’t have an anti-Semitic bone in their body. Of course, Zionism warrants critique like any other political ideology, but conspiracism is not criticism. This is what Martin Luther King Jr. was referring to when he said, “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism.”

One person who has mastered this maneuver is the supreme leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, the man responsible for the most anti-Jewish violence in the world today. In 2021, he posted on social media: “The Zionists have always been a plague, even before establishing the fraudulent Zionist regime. Even then, Zionist capitalists were a plague for the whole world. Now they’re a plague especially for the world of Islam.”

In case the references to rapacious capitalists and comparisons of people to disease didn’t give it away, Khamenei was also not talking about the Amish. He was taking garden-variety anti-Semitism, replacing the word Jews with Zionists, and relying on his audience being too dense or partisan to care. Similarly, when the Republican politician Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia posted a video on her Facebook page declaring that “Zionist supremacists” were “breeding us out of existence in our own homelands,” she was drawing from the same poisoned well. Coded language has always served to smuggle bigotry into the public discourse, and anti-Semitism is no exception.

4. They say they were just “supporting Palestine.” Earlier this month, the actor Susan Sarandon was dropped by her talent agency. It was a mostly symbolic gesture, because the celebrated performer continues to get work and others will be happy to represent her. But almost immediately, viral posts on social media viewed more than 50 million times claimed that she had been punished for her pro-Palestinian advocacy. This popular narrative had only one small flaw: It was false.

As Deadline reported, the words that got Sarandon in trouble were not about Palestinians or Israelis. At a rally in New York, home to the largest Jewish population outside Israel, the actor referred to rising anti-Semitism in America and declared, “There are a lot of people that are afraid, afraid of being Jewish at this time, and are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country.” In reality, since the FBI began tracking hate crimes, Jews have been subjected to more anti-religious attacks than all other groups combined, despite constituting just 2 percent of the American population. This includes the massacre at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue, multiple synagogue shootings in California, and a Texas congregation being taken hostage in 2022. Erasing anti-Semitism and attempting to pit American Jews and Muslims against each other in some sort of debased oppression Olympics is not “support for Palestine.” It’s ignorance at best and malice at worst, which is why Deadline accurately headlined its story “UTA Drops Susan Sarandon as Client Following Recent Antisemitic Remarks She Made at a Rally in New York.”

On social media, none of this mattered. Sarandon was misleadingly cast as a martyr for the Palestinian cause and celebrated by a diverse array of notables, including the journalist Glenn Greenwald, the presidential candidate Cornel West, several prominent progressive activists, and even the head of a human-rights group. None of these people linked to or acknowledged the actual substance of Sarandon’s remarks, even when confronted by commenters who raised them. None has corrected their claims.

Sarandon apologized on Friday, two weeks after her original statement. But the sleight of hand others used to defend her—in which apologetics for anti-Jewish violence are disingenuously recast as Palestinian advocacy—is endemic to our current discourse. Last month, an activist told a public-radio journalist that he’d been receiving “50 hate calls an hour” over a pro-Palestinian speech he delivered at an October 8 rally. But what he actually did was explicitly cheer the murder of civilians and declare, “I salute Hamas—a job well done.” This fact appeared nowhere in the published story, which said only that he “spoke in support of Palestine.”

Pro-Palestinian activism is not the same as anti-Semitism, which is why it’s important that when people say bigoted things about Jews or support violence against them, their words should not be conflated with Palestinian advocacy. But unfortunately, too many anti-Semites wrap themselves in the Palestinian cause, and too many partisans are happy to let them do so. This does not help any Palestinians, as it tends to tar their cause with prejudice, but it does insulate a fair number of anti-Semites from the consequences of their words or actions. That’s why in recent weeks, many bigots have attempted to use the Palestinian plight as their alibi, vandalizing Jewish institutions around the world, including synagogues and kosher restaurants, with “Free Palestine” and related slogans.

Every community has biases—toward the rich and powerful, toward ideological allies—that lead it to excuse bad behavior it would otherwise repudiate. But such excuses for prejudice work only because we allow them to. Covert anti-Semitism tends to turn into overt anti-Semitism. Until we start seriously confronting the former, we can expect more of the latter.

[odinsblog]

Techno grifter, Elon Musk (photos not altered or photoshopped)

Honestly, Iron-Man is my least favorite Marvel character but even so, it irritates tf outta me whenever I hear cryptobros compare Elon Musk to Tony Stark. Tony Stark is a fictional character who tries to do good and has a conscience. Elon Musk threatens workers who want to unionize, runs segregated warehouses, and moves his factories to red states after they have outlawed abortion. You do the math. Musk is already using his twitter status to sic his sycophants (the real ones who aren’t bots) on people and bully his detractors. And Tony Stark was a billionaire, genius inventor! Elon Mush hasn’t “invented” shit, but I’m sure if he actually ends up buying twitter, his fanboys will all say he invented that too. Mush was born into wealth and then used his money to purchase the businesses that invented things. Mush can’t even handle making a fucking tunnel, ffs! And his “self-driving smart cars” stay hitting things that a novice teenaged driver could avoid hitting—like houses, parked cars and even stationary fucking airplanes!

LOL, I’m pretty sure a “billionaire genius inventor” would have figured that shit out by now.

Serious reminder: There is no such thing as a fully self driving autonomous car, no matter how many times Elon lies and says otherwise.

Oh yeah! Remember when the “genius” tried to show everyone that he made an “indestructible” vehicle??

LMAO. The “tech genius” had to try it again and ended up with two busted windows.

Even Mush’s SpaceX is living off of modified NASA technology (that NASA had already seeded, developed or would have developed anyway) and government contracts (aka subsidies). He’s a techno grifter, at best. Call it what it is: people are worshiping him for his wealth. He’s a privileged, wealthy, white, cis male. And that’s literally all it takes to be seen as “the best” in the western world—especially America. Periodt. Elon is a troll. Another spoiled rich boy edge lord, who gets off on “sticking it” to those less powerful than him. But he’s not an inventor, and he is definitely not a genius. Please stop insulting actual geniuses, inventors and Tony Stark like that. If anything, Mush is much more like Karl Lykos, but without the genius inventor part.

Wealth ≠ genius.

#lol #elon musk #tesla #politics #apartheid clyde #cryptobros #twitter takeover #twitter #mr pump and dump #receding hairline #male pattern baldness

[clonerightsagenda]

i would love to hear anything more about communications director minkowski that you would care to share, it sounds like a very fun route for postcanon! 👀

It IS very fun. In lieu of writing a coherent post I just spent quite a bit of time scrolling through 3 years of discord messages for good tidbits:

Gill spent part of my day wondering “you know you’d expect Lovelace to have some Loud And Pointed Opinions about Minkowski being offered the post of Communications Director but maybe instead she’d be the first to figure out there’s no better way to dismantle the company than from the inside out” Kat If you want a job done wrong you gotta do it yourself Gill Minkowski: They… want me to be the next director… and I think I’m going to take the job. Lovelace: …actually. That sounds like an amazing idea. Minkowski: Minkowski: who are you and what have you done with Captain Lovelace Kat Careful Renee. That joke has a bit of an edge to it Gill Nobody’s getting out of post-flight quarantine without an identity crisis of some kind it seems Kate I bet Lovelace would jump at the chance to have a woman on the inside… who has a lot of practice ruining Goddard's plans. Gill Lovelace, probably: You’re gonna need your own version of Cutter’s hypercompetent Right Hand Minion, and it seems to me that the person who kept him distracted while you put a harpoon through his torso would be the ideal candidate. Lovelace: Also, it’d be fun to deface Kepler’s old office.

*

Kat was thinking about Minkowski marriage drama in the context of her voluntarily signing on to be comms director under the same contract as the last one fully aware this means everyone will try to kill her just in case she can keep everyone else safe and then having to explain that to her husband tfw your wife never prioritizes you bc she's too busy prioritizing a) dying in space b) dying on land now Gill Dominik Koudelka, maybe: it just feels like I have to get myself kidnapped by shadowy corporate goons if I want to spend time with you!

*

Kate Communications Director Minkowski 1) definitely publishes her own adapted fifth edition of the Survival Manual that’s not a joke and full of useful things and 2) mostly inspired by things Eiffel did that his justification was “well no one ever TOLD me this would happen in space!” Gill “Leprechauns are not real. Ghosts, however, are.” “In the unlikely but theoretically possible event that leprechauns are discovered at some point in the near future, disregard previous. It’s important to keep an open mind.” Kate Adaptability! Flexibility! Priorities! Acknowledgement that space is full of unpredictable and incomprehensible bullshit! The spirit of the new space age Gill Tip #1002: You may say “fuck”. Once.

*

Kat thought: re Goddard possibly having prison labor going on, maybe when they got Eiffel out of jail they just transferred his sentence to them, and Comms Director Minkowski finds out she technically owns two of her crewmates now and isn't super happy about it Eiffel: so for the next 23 years my ass is yours I guess Minkowski: I don't want it Minkowski, sifting through paperwork: why… why do I own prison laborers now? Can I pardon them? What is this news anchor voice: Goddard Futuristics stocks dipped today as new director Renee Minkowski gave the entirety of their asteroid mining staff early release, quoted as saying "Go home. The fuck." Gill Comms Director Minkowski like ok first off we’re actually giving our workers benefits Kat we'll reroute some of the money headed toward all the R&D for evil shit Gill we’re also defunding our paramilitary branches. Why do we even have those?? Kat Jacobi, raising hand: To do stuff like break into Elon Musk's Mars colony and take him out with extreme prejudice Lovelace: ok that one sounds justified actually Gill Lovelace: Can I go fuck up Elon Musk’s stupid libertarian summer camp? Minkowski: Later, I need you here right now. Lovelace: Aw, ok. ): Kate Okay project Fuck Up Elon Musk can stay

*

Kat underappreciated aspect of the comms director Minkowski concept: DC girl Minkowski finds out she now owns like 75% of the politicians on Capitol Hill. Is not sure how to stop owning them It's like feeding wild animals, they keep coming back for your money even when you try to cut off the lobbying Gill Minkowski: next time a senator shows up at my house I’m siccing Lovelace on them Kat Minkowski: Cutter had an entire budget line for funding ballot initiatives and…. wow, that's a lot. Hey Doug, what are your thoughts on felons being able to vote? Eiffel: Felons can't vote? Minkowski: …. yes?? Eiffel: Oh. Huh. I don't ever vote so I didn't notice. And I see from your expression that you don't approve of this.

*

Gill Comms Director!Minkowski: If you need me, I’ll be in a meeting. /crawls into the vents Kat Local unions still talk about the super weird HVAC remodeling the new director insisted on

*

Gill You are an astronautical engineer at Goddard Futuristics’ special projects division. You were handpicked by the special projects manager herself to work on this new prototype. The craft you and your colleagues poured untold hours of work into is commandeered by Warren Kepler, Legendary Local Douchebag, and two of his minions (an entire ship! For three people!!) to go off and babysit one of your boss’s boss’s ultra-secret pet projects, which you quietly believe is actually an elaborate fraud scheme of some kind. You rage at this. Then, you mourn. Perhaps you drink heavily. Either way, you move on, setting aside your quiet hope that the Urania one day re-enters terrestrial skies, but gradually making peace with the idea you may never see this particular fruit of your labor again. And then a year and a half later you get it back and the interior is just plastered in printer paper that looks like a brigade of toddlers just went nuts on it with their crayons. And also your boss is dead and the apparent leader of said toddlers is the new communications director. Kat Hey at least the astronautical engineering division can feel vindicated that that shuttle a few years back didn't malfunction Gill Engineer: So that shuttle didn’t malfunction and Cutter was actively orchestrating a fake explosion and cover-up. Then he sent Warren “Oh just let me fire off this prototype in a civilian area” Kepler and his goon squad up in our prototype to go fuck around with you guys some more. Minkowski: Yup. Engineer: And you killed him. Minkowski: …yes. Engineer: …did you kill him painfully? Tell me it was painfully. (Minkowski is mildly worried about how she acquires some of her new supporters) Kat Lots of long simmering resentment Kate I imagine she gets a lot of goodwill points for taking out Cutter and Kepler… imagine

*

Kat comms director Minkowski having to do tax fraud to protect her team somehow Gill Jacobi, having just another day in the office, doing taxes: god this is so dull, I hate tax season. I wonder if Minkowski’s gone and holed up in the accounting department, she probably lives for this kind of thing. /smash cut to Minkowski threatening an IRS agent at harpoon-point Kat Minkowski making Hera her own LLC so she has rights now: This is legal according to Citizens United as long as no one looks at it too closely (my dad became an LLC today so he can contract with his work after he retires. I joked he will be the last person able to vote in the household once they take everyone else's rights away but corporations are people) Gill “Minkowski Commits Tax Fraud” would be an amazing chapter title for a fic at some point though Kat Minkowski early in the mission diligently doing her taxes in space because she's a good American citizen Minkowski like 5 years later: fuck capitalism Gill That one meme image but it’s, Minkowski: You mean the game was rigged all along? Minkowski @ herself: always has been. Kate This is my strongest Minkowski belief Gill Minkowski: wow, capitalism sucks, and growing up in a Soviet satellite state was also awful. Perhaps… the true problem… is giving people the power to wholly dictate other people’s lives…

*

Kat after the story of the Hephaestus crew breaks and they're famous Eiffel gets Minkowski a funko pop of herself it has a little harpoon Kinsey i support this wholeheartedly Gill It is both unsettling and adorable. She sets it proudly on her desk at work Kat someone coming into Comms Director Minkowski's office: uhhhhh Minkowski sitting next to her funko pop: what it's got the same psychic damage potential as Cutter having a #1 dad mug on his desk and everyone's too scared to ask about it Gill Concept: Minkowski eventually being gifted the Funko Pop versions of her entire crew They’re referred to affectionately(?) as her minions Kate If you’ve been called to her office because you’ve done something Sketchy and Capitalistic, you might even prefer looking into the creepy flat soulless eyes of the funko pop rather than Minkowski’s very, very sharp and angry human ones Gill Another mental image. Lovelace, beholding her funko pop: I mean, I don’t think my eyes are that terrifying even when I’m possessed by unknown cosmic entities, but other than that, it’s a perfect likeness. Lovelace: Look, she even has her arms folded because she’s mad at the other little plastic crewmates for being idiots. I love her.

#tales from the groupchat #wolf 359

[hasufin]

I'm seeing talk, once again, about how if Congress "won't do its job" it shouldn't get paid.

And I get the impulse. But this is a case of the working class not understanding how rich people get rich.

There are two facts which do not contradict each other.

For one, most congressmembers' salaries are $182,000 per year. Now, that's nothing to sneeze at. But realize they're obliged to maintain two residences, including one in a very high cost of living area; not to mention a number of other lifestyle needs appropriate to their position. It sounds like a lot of money, but freshman congressmembers of both parties have perennially complained about the low pay, and frankly they're not whining. That salary is in fact less than that made by some people I know in the area, and those people are, well, they're not rich. Comfortable, but not rich.

That being said, the majority of congressmembers are millionaires. Many of them have hundreds of millions. Sure, they're not Mark Zuckerberg or Elon Musk, but these people are rich.

So what gives?

Well, you have to look into it a bit more, and ignore a popular narrative. see, we kind of assume the "fat cats in congress" got rich by "sucking on the government teat". But that's... well, it's kinda stupid. Nobody gets rich working on a salary. Even a comfortable salary. That's not how it works.

What happens is this.

For one, an awful lot of these people were rich before running for congress. And that makes sense. Campaigning for congress is a full-time job, and one that's unpaid. Do you have the ability to go 18 months without drawing an income? (In reality, they can often draw a salary from their campaign, but that relies on having a campaign fund sufficient to do that, which still favors people with sufficient name recognition and connections to get that kind of money for their campaign). So, already, we're looking at a process which selects for people who are independently wealthy to some extent. And in fact, if you look into it, an awful lot of congressmembers are owners of regional businesses; the narrative holds "knows how to run a business, knows how to run a country", and while that's been very thorooughly disproven, people still buy it for some reason.

What about the people who weren't already rich, though? How did they end up rich if it wasn't their fat government paycheck?

They did it the American way: having someone else make money for them, of course.

Now, you're very seldom going to find someone just handing cash to a politician; you're not even all that likely to see very many cases of a rich person paying for a new boat or vacation home for a SCOTUS justice. I mean, it's happened, but that's not The Way.

It's all about investments. It's about just so happening to own stock in a holding company which happens to own real estate that becomes super valuable because of a new report on Rare Earth minerals. Being a part owner in a company which gets the contract to inspect bridges. All these thing are definitely unethical, and should probably be illegal, but are definitely very hard to prove - hell, they don't even fit in soundbites for the news.

By contrast, some members of congress do just rely on their salary, perform their duties diligently, and not use public service as an opportunity to enrich themselves. These people are often viewed as failures; as lacking the necessary economic skill to hold the office. And, when we decide to lash out, they're also the ones most affected - they're the ones who really do rely on the government salaries we seek to slash.

[beardedmrbean]

X Corp., the parent company of the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco federal court Monday against a nonprofit organization that monitors hate speech and disinformation, following through on a threat that had made headlines hours earlier.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) of orchestrating a "scare campaign to drive away advertisers from the X platform" by publishing research reports claiming that the social media service failed to take action against hateful posts. The service is owned by the technology mogul Elon Musk.

In the filing, lawyers for X. Corp alleged that the CCDH carried out "a series of unlawful acts designed to improperly gain access to protected X Corp. data, needed by CCDH so that it could cherry-pick from the hundreds of millions of posts made each day on X and falsely claim it had statistical support showing the platform is overwhelmed with harmful content."

The complaint specifically accuses the nonprofit group of breach of contract, violating federal computer fraud law, intentional interference with contractual relations and inducing breach of contract. The company's lawyers made a demand for a jury trial.

The lawsuit was filed just hours after the CCDH revealed that Musk's lawyer, Alex Spiro, had sent the organization a letter on July 20 saying X Corp. was investigating whether the CCDH's "false and misleading claims about Twitter" were actionable under federal law.

In a statement to NBC News, CCDH founder and chief executive Imran Ahmed took direct aim at Musk, arguing that the Tesla and SpaceX tycoon's "latest legal threat is straight out of the authoritarian playbook — he is now showing he will stop at nothing to silence anyone who criticizes him for his own decisions and actions."

"The Center for Countering Digital Hate’s research shows that hate and disinformation is spreading like wildfire on the platform under Musk's ownership and this lawsuit is a direct attempt to silence those efforts," Ahmed added in part. "Musk is trying to 'shoot the messenger' who highlights the toxic content on his platform rather than deal with the toxic environment he's created.

"The CCDH's independent research won’t stop — Musk will not bully us into silence," Ahmed said in closing.

The research report that drew particular ire from X Corp. claimed that the platform had failed to take action against 99% of 100 posts flagged by CCDH staff members that included racist, homophobic and antisemitic content.

Musk has drawn fierce scrutiny since buying Twitter last year. Top hate speech watchdog groups and activists have blasted him for loosening restrictions on what can be posted on the platform, and business analysts have raised eyebrows at his seemingly erratic and impulsive decision-making.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate's research has been cited by NBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and many other news outlets.

Musk, who has been criticized for posting conspiratorial or inflammatory content on his own account, has said he is acting in the interest of "free speech." He has said he wants to transform Twitter into a "digital town square."

Musk has also claimed that hate speech on the platform was shrinking. In a tweet on Nov. 23, Musk wrote that “hate speech impressions” were down by one-third and posted a graph — apparently drawn from internal data — showing a downward trend.

#nunyas news #make them spell out what they consider hate speech

[surveillance-capitalism]

Link without paywall:

And a copypaste for good measure:

Last October, Colin Kahl, then the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon, sat in a hotel in Paris and prepared to make a call to avert disaster in Ukraine. A staffer handed him an iPhone—in part to avoid inviting an onslaught of late-night texts and colorful emojis on Kahl’s own phone. Kahl had returned to his room, with its heavy drapery and distant view of the Eiffel Tower, after a day of meetings with officials from the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. A senior defense official told me that Kahl was surprised by whom he was about to contact: “He was, like, ‘Why am I calling Elon Musk?’ ”

The reason soon became apparent. “Even though Musk is not technically a diplomat or statesman, I felt it was important to treat him as such, given the influence he had on this issue,” Kahl told me. SpaceX, Musk’s space-exploration company, had for months been providing Internet access across Ukraine, allowing the country’s forces to plan attacks and to defend themselves. But, in recent days, the forces had found their connectivity severed as they entered territory contested by Russia. More alarmingly, SpaceX had recently given the Pentagon an ultimatum: if it didn’t assume the cost of providing service in Ukraine, which the company calculated at some four hundred million dollars annually, it would cut off access. “We started to get a little panicked,” the senior defense official, one of four who described the standoff to me, recalled. Musk “could turn it off at any given moment. And that would have real operational impact for the Ukrainians.”

Musk had become involved in the war in Ukraine soon after Russia invaded, in February, 2022. Along with conventional assaults, the Kremlin was conducting cyberattacks against Ukraine’s digital infrastructure. Ukrainian officials and a loose coalition of expatriates in the tech sector, brainstorming in group chats on WhatsApp and Signal, found a potential solution: SpaceX, which manufactures a line of mobile Internet terminals called Starlink. The tripod-mounted dishes, each about the size of a computer display and clad in white plastic reminiscent of the sleek design sensibility of Musk’s Tesla electric cars, connect with a network of satellites. The units have limited range, but in this situation that was an advantage: although a nationwide network of dishes was required, it would be difficult for Russia to completely dismantle Ukrainian connectivity. Of course, Musk could do so. Three people involved in bringing Starlink to Ukraine, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they worried that Musk, if upset, could withdraw his services, told me that they originally overlooked the significance of his personal control. “Nobody thought about it back then,” one of them, a Ukrainian tech executive, told me. “It was all about ‘Let’s fucking go, people are dying.’ ”

In the ensuing months, fund-raising in Silicon Valley’s Ukrainian community, contracts with the U.S. Agency for International Development and with European governments, and pro-bono contributions from SpaceX facilitated the transfer of thousands of Starlink units to Ukraine. A soldier in Ukraine’s signal corps who was responsible for maintaining Starlink access on the front lines, and who asked to be identified only by his first name, Mykola, told me, “It’s the essential backbone of communication on the battlefield.”

Initially, Musk showed unreserved support for the Ukrainian cause, responding encouragingly as Mykhailo Fedorov, the Ukrainian minister for digital transformation, tweeted pictures of equipment in the field. But, as the war ground on, SpaceX began to balk at the cost. “We are not in a position to further donate terminals to Ukraine, or fund the existing terminals for an indefinite period of time,” SpaceX’s director of government sales told the Pentagon in a letter, last September. (CNBC recently valued SpaceX at nearly a hundred and fifty billion dollars. Forbes estimated Musk’s personal net worth at two hundred and twenty billion dollars, making him the world’s richest man.)

Musk was also growing increasingly uneasy with the fact that his technology was being used for warfare. That month, at a conference in Aspen attended by business and political figures, Musk even appeared to express support for Vladimir Putin. “He was onstage, and he said, ‘We should be negotiating. Putin wants peace—we should be negotiating peace with Putin,’ ” Reid Hoffman, who helped start PayPal with Musk, recalled. Musk seemed, he said, to have “bought what Putin was selling, hook, line, and sinker.” A week later, Musk tweeted a proposal for his own peace plan, which called for new referendums to redraw the borders of Ukraine, and granted Russia control of Crimea, the semi-autonomous peninsula recognized by most nations, including the United States, as Ukrainian territory. In later tweets, Musk portrayed as inevitable an outcome favoring Russia and attached maps highlighting eastern Ukrainian territories, some of which, he argued, “prefer Russia.” Musk also polled his Twitter followers about the plan. Millions responded, with about sixty per cent rejecting the proposal. (Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s President, tweeted his own poll, asking users whether they preferred the Elon Musk who supported Ukraine or the one who now seemed to back Russia. The former won, though Zelensky’s poll had a smaller turnout: Musk has more than twenty times as many followers.)

By then, Musk’s sympathies appeared to be manifesting on the battlefield. One day, Ukrainian forces advancing into contested areas in the south found themselves suddenly unable to communicate. “We were very close to the front line,” Mykola, the signal-corps soldier, told me. “We crossed this border and the Starlink stopped working.” The consequences were immediate. “Communications became dead, units were isolated. When you’re on offense, especially for commanders, you need a constant stream of information from battalions. Commanders had to drive to the battlefield to be in radio range, risking themselves,” Mykola said. “It was chaos.” Ukrainian expats who had raised funds for the Starlink units began receiving frantic calls. The tech executive recalls a Ukrainian military official telling him, “We need Elon now.” “How now?” he replied. “Like fucking now,” the official said. “People are dying.” Another Ukrainian involved told me that he was “awoken by a dozen calls saying they’d lost connectivity and had to retreat.” The Financial Times reported that outages affected units in Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Luhansk. American and Ukrainian officials told me they believed that SpaceX had cut the connectivity via geofencing, cordoning off areas of access.

The senior defense official said, “We had a whole series of meetings internal to the department to try to figure out what we could do about this.” Musk’s singular role presented unfamiliar challenges, as did the government’s role as intermediary. “It wasn’t like we could hold him in breach of contract or something,” the official continued. The Pentagon would need to reach a contractual arrangement with SpaceX so that, at the very least, Musk “couldn’t wake up one morning and just decide, like, he didn’t want to do this anymore.” Kahl added, “It was kind of a way for us to lock in services across Ukraine. It could at least prevent Musk from turning off the switch altogether.”

Typically, such a negotiation would be handled by the Pentagon’s acquisitions department. But Musk had become more than just a vender like Boeing, Lockheed, or other defense-industry behemoths. On the phone with Musk from Paris, Kahl was deferential. According to unclassified talking points for the call, he thanked Musk for his efforts in Ukraine, acknowledged the steep costs he’d incurred, and pleaded for even a few weeks to devise a contract. “If you cut this off, it doesn’t end the war,” Kahl recalled telling Musk.

Musk wasn’t immediately convinced. “My inference was that he was getting nervous that Starlink’s involvement was increasingly seen in Russia as enabling the Ukrainian war effort, and was looking for a way to placate Russian concerns,” Kahl told me. To the dismay of Pentagon officials, Musk volunteered that he had spoken with Putin personally. Another individual told me that Musk had made the same assertion in the weeks before he tweeted his pro-Russia peace plan, and had said that his consultations with the Kremlin were regular. (Musk later denied having spoken with Putin about Ukraine.) On the phone, Musk said that he was looking at his laptop and could see “the entire war unfolding” through a map of Starlink activity. “This was, like, three minutes before he said, ‘Well, I had this great conversation with Putin,’ ” the senior defense official told me. “And we were, like, ‘Oh, dear, this is not good.’ ” Musk told Kahl that the vivid illustration of how technology he had designed for peaceful ends was being used to wage war gave him pause.

After a fifteen-minute call, Musk agreed to give the Pentagon more time. He also, after public blowback and with evident annoyance, walked back his threats to cut off service. “The hell with it,” he tweeted. “Even though Starlink is still losing money & other companies are getting billions of taxpayer $, we’ll just keep funding Ukraine govt for free.” This June, the Department of Defense announced that it had reached a deal with SpaceX.

The meddling of oligarchs and other monied interests in the fate of nations is not new. During the First World War, J. P. Morgan lent vast sums to the Allied powers; afterward, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., poured money into the fledgling League of Nations. The investor George Soros’s Open Society Foundations underwrote civil-society reform in post-Soviet Europe, and the casino mogul Sheldon Adelson funded right-wing media in Israel, as part of his support of Benjamin Netanyahu.

But Musk’s influence is more brazen and expansive. There is little precedent for a civilian’s becoming the arbiter of a war between nations in such a granular way, or for the degree of dependency that the U.S. now has on Musk in a variety of fields, from the future of energy and transportation to the exploration of space. SpaceX is currently the sole means by which NASA transports crew from U.S. soil into space, a situation that will persist for at least another year. The government’s plan to move the auto industry toward electric cars requires increasing access to charging stations along America’s highways. But this rests on the actions of another Musk enterprise, Tesla. The automaker has seeded so much of the country with its proprietary charging stations that the Biden Administration relaxed an early push for a universal charging standard disliked by Musk. His stations are eligible for billions of dollars in subsidies, so long as Tesla makes them compatible with the other charging standard.

In the past twenty years, against a backdrop of crumbling infrastructure and declining trust in institutions, Musk has sought out business opportunities in crucial areas where, after decades of privatization, the state has receded. The government is now reliant on him, but struggles to respond to his risk-taking, brinkmanship, and caprice. Current and former officials from NASA, the Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration told me that Musk’s influence had become inescapable in their work, and several of them said that they now treat him like a sort of unelected official. One Pentagon spokesman said that he was keeping Musk apprised of my inquiries about his role in Ukraine and would grant an interview with an official about the matter only with Musk’s permission. “We’ll talk to you if Elon wants us to,” he told me. In a podcast interview last year, Musk was asked whether he has more influence than the American government. He replied immediately, “In some ways.” Reid Hoffman told me that Musk’s attitude is “like Louis XIV: ‘L’état, c’est moi.’ ”

Musk’s power continues to grow. His takeover of Twitter, which he has rebranded “X,” gives him a critical forum for political discourse ahead of the next Presidential election. He recently launched an artificial-intelligence company, a move that follows years of involvement in the technology. Musk has become a hyper-exposed pop-culture figure, and his sharp turns from altruistic to vainglorious, strategic to impulsive, have been the subject of innumerable articles and at least seven major books, including a forthcoming biography by Walter Isaacson. But the nature and the scope of his power are less widely understood.

More than thirty of Musk’s current and former colleagues in various industries and a dozen individuals in his personal life spoke to me about their experiences with him. Sam Altman, the C.E.O. of OpenAI, with whom Musk has both worked and sparred, told me, “Elon desperately wants the world to be saved. But only if he can be the one to save it.”

The terms of the Starlink deal have not been made public. Ukrainian officials say that they have not faced further service interruptions. But Musk has continued to express ambivalence about how the technology is being used, and where it can be deployed. In February, he tweeted, “We will not enable escalation of conflict that may lead to WW3.” He said, as he had told Kahl, that he was sincerely attempting to navigate the moral dilemmas of his role: “We’re trying hard to do the right thing, where the ‘right thing’ is an extremely difficult moral question.”

Musk’s hesitation aligns with his pragmatic interests. A facility in Shanghai produces half of all Tesla cars, and Musk depends on the good will of officials in China, which has lent support to Russia in the conflict. Musk recently acknowledged to the Financial Times that Beijing disapproves of his decision to provide Internet service to Ukraine and has sought assurances that he would not deploy similar technology in China. In the same interview, he responded to questions about China’s efforts to assert control over Taiwan by floating another peace plan. Taiwan, he suggested, could become a jointly controlled administrative zone, an outcome that Taiwanese leaders see as ending the country’s independence. During a trip to Beijing this spring, Musk was welcomed with what Reuters summarized as “flattery and feasts.” He met with senior officials, including China’s foreign minister, and posed for the kinds of awkwardly smiling formal photos that are more typical of world leaders.

National-security officials I spoke with had a range of views on the government’s balance of power with Musk. He maintains good relationships with some of them, including General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since the two men met, several years ago, when Milley was the chief of staff of the Army, they have discussed “technology applications to warfare—artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, and autonomous machines,” Milley told me. “He has insight that helped shape my thoughts on the fundamental change in the character of war and the modernization of the U.S. military.” During the Starlink controversy, Musk called him for advice. But other officials expressed profound misgivings. “Living in the world we live in, in which Elon runs this company and it is a private business under his control, we are living off his good graces,” a Pentagon official told me. “That sucks.”

One summer evening in the mid-nineteen-eighties, Musk and his friend Theo Taoushiani took Taoushiani’s father’s car for an illicit drive. Musk and Taoushiani were both in their mid-teens, and lived about a mile apart in a suburb of Johannesburg, South Africa. Neither had a driver’s license, or permission from Taoushiani’s father. But they were passionate Dungeons & Dragons fans, and a new module—a fresh scenario in the game—had just been released. Taoushiani took the wheel for the twenty-minute drive to the Sandton City mall. “Elon was my co-pilot,” Taoushiani told me. “We went under the cover of darkness.” At the mall, they found that they didn’t have enough money. But Musk promised a salesperson that they would return the next day with the rest, and dropped the name of a well-known Greek restaurant owned by Taoushiani’s family. “Elon had the gift of the gab,” Taoushiani said. “He’s very persuasive, and he’s quite dogged in his determination.” The two went home with the module.

Musk was born in 1971 in Pretoria, the country’s administrative capital, and he and his younger brother, Kimbal, and his younger sister, Tosca, grew up under apartheid. Musk’s mother, Maye, a Canadian model and dietitian, and his father, Errol, an engineer, divorced when he was young, and the children initially stayed with Maye. She has said that Errol was physically abusive toward her. “He would hit me when the kids were around,” she wrote in her memoir. “I remember that Tosca and Kimbal, who were two and four, respectively, would cry in the corner, and Elon, who was five, would hit him on the backs of his knees to try to stop him.” By the mid-eighties, Musk had moved in with his father—a decision that he has said was motivated by concern for his father’s loneliness, and which he came to regret. Musk, usually impassive in interviews, cried openly when he told Rolling Stone about the years that followed, in which, he said, his father psychologically tortured him, in ways that he declined to specify. “You have no idea about how bad,” he said. “Almost every crime you can possibly think of, he has done. Almost every evil thing you could possibly think of, he has done.” Taoushiani recalled witnessing Errol “chastise Elon a lot. Maybe belittle him.” (Errol Musk has denied allegations that he was abusive to Maye or to his children.) Musk has also said that he was violently bullied at school. Though he is now six feet one, with a broad-shouldered build, he was “much, much smaller back in school,” Taoushiani told me. “He wasn’t very social.”

Musk has said that he has Asperger’s syndrome, a form of what is now known as autism-spectrum disorder, which is characterized by difficulty with social interactions. As a child, he would sometimes fall into trancelike states of deep thought, during which he was so unresponsive that his mother eventually took him to a doctor to check his hearing. Musk’s quiet side persists—in my own interactions with him, I have found him to be thoughtful and measured. (Musk declined to answer questions for this story.) He can also be, as he joked during a stilted “Saturday Night Live” monologue, “pretty good at running human, in emulation mode.”

Musk escaped into science fiction and video games. “One of the reasons I got into technology, maybe the reason, was video games,” he said at a gaming-industry convention several years ago. In his early teens, Musk coded an eight-bit shooter game in the style of Space Invaders called Blastar, whose title screen, in a novelistic flourish, credits him as “E. R. Musk.” The premise was basic: “MISSION: DESTROY ALIEN FREIGHTER CARRYING DEADLY HYDROGEN BOMBS AND STATUS BEAM MACHINES.” But it won recognition from a South African trade magazine, which published the game’s hundred and sixty-seven lines of code and paid Musk a small sum.

Musk often talks about his science-fiction influences. Some have manifested in straightforward ways: he has connected his love of Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” novels, whose characters grapple with a mathematically precise prediction of their civilization’s collapse, to his obsession with insuring human survival beyond Earth. But some of Musk’s touchstones present ironies. He has said that his hero is Douglas Adams, the writer who skewered both the hyper-rich and the progress-at-any-cost ethos that Musk has come to embody. In the “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” novels and radio plays, the latter of which were broadcast in South Africa during Musk’s childhood, a narcissistic playboy becomes the president of the galaxy, and Earth is demolished to make way for a space transit route. Musk is also an avowed fan of Deus Ex, a role-playing first-person-shooter video game that he has brought up when discussing his company Neuralink, which aspires to invent ability-enhancing body modifications like those featured in the game. During the pandemic, Musk seemed to embrace Covid denialism, and for a while he changed his Twitter profile picture to an image of the protagonist of the game, which turns on a manufactured plague designed to control the masses. But Deus Ex, like “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” is a fundamentally anti-capitalist text, in which the plague is the culmination of unrestrained corporate power, and the villain is the world’s richest man, a media-darling tech entrepreneur with global aspirations and political leaders under his control.

In 1999, Musk stood outside his Bay Area home to accept the delivery of a million-dollar McLaren F1 sports car. He was in his late twenties, and wearing an oversized brown blazer. “Some could interpret purchasing this car as behavior characteristic of an imperialist brat,” he told a CNN news crew. Then he beamed, saying that there were only about sixty such cars in the world. “My values may have changed,” he added, “but I’m not consciously aware of my values having changed.” Musk’s fiancée, a Canadian writer named Justine Wilson, seemed more aware. “It’s a million-dollar car. It’s decadent,” she said. “My fear is that we become spoiled brats. That we lose a sense of appreciation and perspective.” The McLaren, she observed, was “the perfect car for Silicon Valley.”

Musk had moved to Canada when he was in his late teens, and met Wilson when they both attended Queen’s University, in Ontario. He later transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, graduating with degrees in economics and physics. In 1995, the early days of the World Wide Web, he and Kimbal founded a company that came to be called Zip2, an online city directory that they sold to newspapers. Musk has often described the company’s humble origins, saying that he and his brother lived and worked in a small studio apartment, showering at a nearby Y.M.C.A. and eating at Jack in the Box. (Errol at one point gave his sons twenty-eight thousand dollars. Musk, who has a tendency to fuss over questions of credit, has stated that his father’s contribution came “much later,” in a round of funding that “would’ve happened anyway.”) At Zip2, Musk developed what he describes as his “hard-core” work style; even after he had his own apartment, he often slept on a beanbag at the office. But, in the end, the company’s investors stripped him of his leadership role and installed a more experienced chief executive. Musk believed that the startup should have been targeting not just newspapers but consumers. Investors pursued a more modest vision instead. In 1999, Zip2 was sold to Compaq for three hundred and seven million dollars, earning Musk more than twenty million dollars.

Justine and Musk married the following year. After their first child died at ten weeks, from sudden infant death syndrome, the couple dealt with the tragedy in very different ways. Justine, by her account, grieved openly; Musk later told one of his biographers, Ashlee Vance, that “wallowing in sadness does no good for anyone around you.” After pursuing I.V.F. treatment, the couple had twins, then triplets. (Musk now has at least nine children with three different women, and has said that he is doing his part to address one of his pet issues, the risk of population collapse; demographers are skeptical about the matter.) Justine wrote in an essay for Marie Claire that their relationship eventually buckled under the weight of Musk’s obsession with work and his controlling tendencies, which began with him insisting, as they danced at their wedding, “I am the alpha in this relationship.” A messy divorce ensued, leading to a legal dispute over their postnuptial financial agreement, which was settled years later. “He had grown up in the male-dominated culture of South Africa,” Justine wrote. “The will to compete and dominate that made him so successful in business did not magically shut off when he came home.” (Musk wrote a response to Justine’s account in Business Insider, discussing the financial dispute, but he did not address Justine’s characterizations of his behavior.)

After Musk left Zip2, he poured some twelve million dollars, a majority of his wealth, into another startup, an online bank called X.com. It was the first instance of his obsession with the letter “X,” which has now appeared in the names of his companies, his products, and his son with the artist Grimes: X Æ A-12. The bank also marked the beginning of a long and so far unfulfilled quest—recently revived in his effort to reinvent Twitter—to create an “everything app,” incorporating a payment system. In 2000, X.com merged with a competing online-payments startup, Confinity, co-founded by the entrepreneur Peter Thiel. In events that have since become Silicon Valley lore, Musk and Thiel battled for control of the company. Various accounts apportion blame differently. Hoffman told me, citing the story as an example of Musk’s disingenuousness, that Musk had pushed for the merger by highlighting the leadership of his company’s seasoned executive, only to force out the executive and place himself in the top role. “A merger like this, you’re doing a marriage,” Hoffman said. “And it’s, like, ‘I was lying to you intensely while we were dating. Now that we’re married, let me tell you about the herpes.’ ” People who have worked with Musk often describe him as controlling. One said, “In the areas he wants to compete in, he has a very hard time sharing the spotlight, or not being the center of attention.” In the fall of 2000, another coup, executed while Musk was on a long-delayed honeymoon with Justine, overthrew Musk and installed Thiel as the company’s head. Two years later, eBay acquired the company, by then called PayPal, for $1.5 billion, making Musk, who remained the largest shareholder, fabulously wealthy.

Perhaps the most revealing moment in the PayPal saga happened at its outset. In March, 2000, as the merger was under way, Musk was driving his new McLaren, with Thiel in the passenger seat. The two were on Sand Hill Road, an artery that cuts through Silicon Valley. Thiel asked Musk, “So what can this do?” Musk replied, “Watch this,” then floored the gas pedal, hit an embankment, and sent the car airborne and spinning before it slammed back onto the pavement, blowing out its suspension and its windows. “This isn’t insured,” Musk told Thiel. Musk’s critics have used the story to illustrate his reckless showboating, but it also underscores how often Musk has been rewarded for that behavior: he repaired the McLaren, drove it for several more years, then reportedly sold it at a profit. Musk delights in telling the story, lingering on the risk to his life. In one interview, asked whether there were parallels with his approach to building companies, Musk said, “I hope not.” Appearing to consider the idea, he added, “Watch this. Yeah, that could be awkward with a rocket launch.”

Of all Musk’s enterprises, SpaceX may be the one that most fundamentally reflects his appetite for risk. Staff at SpaceX’s Starship facility, in Boca Chica, Texas, spent December of 2020 preparing for the launch of a rocket known as SN8, then the newest prototype in the company’s Starship program, which it hopes will eventually transport humans to orbit, to the moon, and, in the mission Musk speaks about with the most passion, to Mars. The F.A.A. had approved an initial launch date for the rocket. But an engine issue forced SpaceX to delay by a day. By then, the weather had shifted. On the new day, the F.A.A. told SpaceX that, according to its model of the wind’s speed and direction, if the rocket exploded it could create a blast wave that risked damaging the windows of nearby houses. A series of tense meetings followed, with SpaceX presenting its own modelling to establish that the launch was safe, and the F.A.A. refusing to grant permission. Wayne Monteith, then the head of the agency’s space division, was leaving an event at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station when he received a frustrated call from Musk. “Look, you cannot launch,” Monteith told him. “You’re not cleared to launch.” Musk acknowledged the order.

Musk was on site in Boca Chica when SpaceX launched anyway. The rocket achieved liftoff and successfully performed several maneuvers intended to rehearse those of an eventual manned Starship. But, on landing, the SN8 came in too fast, and exploded on impact. (No windows were damaged.) The next day, Musk visited the crash site. In a picture taken that day, Musk stands next to the twisted steel of the rocket, dressed in a black T-shirt and jeans, looking determined, his arms crossed and his eyes narrowed. His tweets about the explosion were celebratory, not apologetic. “He has a long history of launching and blowing up rockets. And then he puts out videos of all the rockets that he’s blown up. And like half of America thinks it’s really cool,” the former NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine told me. “He has a different set of rules.”

Hans Koenigsmann, then SpaceX’s vice-president for flight reliability, started working on a customary report to the F.A.A. about the launch. Koenigsmann told me that he felt pressure to minimize focus on the launch process and Musk’s role in it. “I sensed that he wanted it taken out,” Koenigsmann said. “I disagreed, and in the end we wound up with a very different version from what was originally intended.” Eventually, Koenigsmann was told not to write a report at all, and a letter was sent to the F.A.A. instead. The agency, meanwhile, opened its own investigation. Monteith told me that he agreed with Musk that the F.A.A. had been conservative about a situation that presented little statistical risk of casualties, but he was nevertheless troubled. “We had safety folks who were very upset about it,” Monteith recalled. In a series of letters to SpaceX, Monteith accused the company of relying on data “hastily developed to meet a launch window,” launching “based on ‘impressions’ and ‘assumptions,’ ” and exhibiting “a concerning lack of operational control and process discipline that is inconsistent with a strong safety culture.” In its responses, SpaceX proposed various safety reforms, but also pushed back, complaining that the F.A.A.’s weather model was unreliable and suggesting that the agency had been resistant to discussions about improving it. (SpaceX did not respond to requests for comment.)

The following March, Steve Dickson, then the F.A.A.’s administrator, called Musk. The two men spoke for thirty minutes. Like Kahl, Dickson was deferential, thanking Musk for his role in transforming the commercial space sector and acknowledging that SpaceX was taking steps to make its launches less risky. But Dickson, an F.A.A. spokesperson said in a statement, “made it clear that the FAA expects SpaceX to develop and foster a robust safety culture that stresses adherence to FAA rules.” Dickson had navigated such conversations before, including with Boeing after two 737 max aircraft crashed. But this situation presented a thornier challenge. “It’s not every day that the F.A.A. administrator releases a statement about a phone call that they have with the C.E.O. or the head of an aerospace company,” an official at the agency told me. “That kind of gets into the soft pressure, public pressure that you don’t do unless you are trying to change the incentive structure.”

The F.A.A. issued no fine, though it grounded SpaceX for two months. “I didn’t see that a fine would make any difference,” Monteith told me. “He could pull that out of his pocket. However, not allowing launches, that would get the attention of a company that prides itself on being able to iterate and go fast.” Musk has continued to complain about the agency. After it postponed another launch, he tweeted, “The FAA space division has a fundamentally broken regulatory structure.” He added, “Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.”

Musk has been fixated on space since his childhood. The idea for SpaceX came about after his exile from PayPal. “I went to the NASA website so I could see the schedule of when we’re supposed to go” to Mars, Musk told Wired, in 2012. “At first I thought, jeez, maybe I’m just looking in the wrong place! Why was there no plan, no schedule? There was nothing.” In 2001, he connected with space-exploration enthusiasts, and even travelled to Russia in an unsuccessful bid to buy missiles to use as rockets. The next year, he moved to Los Angeles, closer to California’s aerospace industry, and ultimately he pulled together a team of engineers and entrepreneurs and founded SpaceX, to make his own rockets. Private rocket launches date back to the eighties, but no one had attempted anything on the scale that Musk envisioned, and it proved to be more difficult and expensive than he had anticipated. Musk has said that, by 2008, the company was nearly bankrupt, and that, after putting much of his wealth into SpaceX and Tesla, he wasn’t far behind. “That was definitely the worst year of my life,” he said in an interview on “60 Minutes.” SpaceX’s first three launches had failed, and there was no budget for another. “I had no more money left,” Musk told Bridenstine, the NASA administrator, years later. “We managed to put together enough spare parts to do a fourth launch.” Had that failed, he added, “SpaceX would have died.” The launch was successful, and NASA soon awarded SpaceX a $1.6-billion contract to resupply the International Space Station. In 2020, the company flew its first manned mission there—ending nearly a decade of American reliance on Russian craft for the task. SpaceX now launches more satellites than any other private company, with four thousand five hundred and nineteen in orbit as of July, occupying many of Earth’s orbital routes. “Once the carrying capacity of an orbit is maxed out, you’ve basically blocked everyone from trying to compete in that market,” Bridenstine told me.

There are competitors in the field, including Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin and Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, but none yet rival SpaceX. The new space race has the potential to shape the global balance of power. Satellites enable the navigation of drones and missiles and generate imagery used for intelligence, and they are mostly under the control of private companies. “The U.S. government is in massive catch-up to build a more resilient space architecture,” Kahl, the former Pentagon Under-Secretary, told me. “And that only works if you can leverage the explosion of commercial space.” Several officials told me that they were alarmed by NASA’s reliance on SpaceX for essential services. “There is only one thing worse than a government monopoly. And that is a private monopoly that the government is dependent on,” Bridenstine said. “I do worry that we have put all of our eggs into one basket, and it’s the SpaceX basket.”

Even Musk’s critics concede that his tendency to push against constraints has helped catalyze SpaceX’s success. A number of officials suggested to me that, despite the tensions related to the company, it has made government bureaucracies nimbler. “When SpaceX and NASA work together, we work closer to optimal speed,” Kenneth Bowersox, NASA’s associate administrator for space operations, told me. Still, some figures in the aerospace world, even ones who think that Musk’s rockets are basically safe, fear that concentrating so much power in private companies, with so few restraints, invites tragedy. “At some point, with new competitors emerging, progress will be thwarted when there’s an accident, and people won’t be confident in the capabilities commercial companies have,” Bridenstine said. “I mean, we just saw this submersible going down to visit the Titanic implode. I think we have to think about the non-regulatory environment as sometimes hurting the industry more than the regulatory environment.”

In early 2022, Steven Cliff, then the deputy administrator of the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, learned that potentially tens of thousands of Tesla vehicles had a feature that he found concerning. For years, Tesla has been working to create a totally self-driving car, a long-standing ambition of Musk’s. Now Cliff was told that a version of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software, an experimental feature that lets the cars navigate with little intervention from a driver, permitted cars to roll through stop signs, at up to about six miles an hour. This was clearly illegal. Cliff’s enforcement team contacted Tesla, and, in several meetings, a surprising conversation about safety and artificial intelligence played out. Representatives for Tesla seemed confused. Their response, as Cliff recalled, was “That’s what humans do all the time. Show us the data, why it’s unsafe.” N.H.T.S.A. officials told Tesla that, regardless of human compliance, “you should not be able to program a computer to break the law for you.” They demanded that Tesla update all the affected cars, removing the feature—a recall, in industry terms, albeit a digital one. “There was a lot of back-and-forth,” Cliff told me. “Like, at midnight on the very last day, they blinked and ended up recalling the rolling-stop feature.” (Tesla did not respond to requests for comment.)

Musk joined Tesla as an investor in 2004, a year after it was incorporated. (He has spent years defending the formative nature of his role and was eventually, in a legal settlement, one of several people granted permission to use the term “co-founder.”) Musk was again entering a market bound by entrenched private interests and stringent regulation, which opened him up to more clashes with regulators. Some of the skirmishes were trivial. Tesla for a time included in its vehicles the ability to replace the humming noises that electric cars must emit—since their engines make little sound—with goat bleats, farting, or a sound of the owner’s choice. “We’re, like, ‘No, that’s not compliant with the regulations, don’t be stupid,’ ” Cliff told me. Tesla argued with regulators for more than a year, according to an N.H.T.S.A. safety report. Nine days after the rolling-stop recall, the company pulled the noises, too. On Twitter, Musk wrote, “The fun police made us do it (sigh).”

“It’s a little like Mom and Dad and children. Like, How far can I push Mom and Dad until they push back?” Cliff said. “And that’s not a recipe for a strong safety culture.”

The fart debate had low stakes; the over-all safety of the cars is a far greater matter. Tesla has repeatedly said that Autopilot, a more limited technology than Full Self-Driving, is safer than a human driver. Last year, Musk added that he would be “shocked” if Full Self-Driving didn’t become safer than human drivers by the end of the year. But he has never made public the data needed to fully corroborate those claims. In recent months, new crash numbers from the N.H.T.S.A., which were first reported by the Washington Post, have shown an uptick in accidents—and fatalities—involving Autopilot and Full Self-Driving. Tesla has been secretive about the specifics. A person at the N.H.T.S.A. told me that the company instructed the agency to redact specifics about whether driver-assistance software was in use during crashes. (By law, regulators must abide by such requests for confidentiality, unless they decide to contest them in court.) Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, recently said that there were “concerns” about the marketing of Autopilot. Cliff told me he had seen data that showed Teslas were involved in “a disproportionate number of crashes involving emergency vehicles,” though he said that the agency had not yet determined whether the technology or the human drivers was the cause. In a statement, a spokesperson for the agency said, “Multiple investigations remain open.”

Officials who have worked at OSHA and at an equivalent California agency told me that Musk’s influence, and his attitude about regulation, had made their jobs difficult. The Biden Administration, which is urgently trying to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, has concluded that it needs to work with Musk, because of his dominant position in the electric-car market. And Musk’s personal wealth dwarfs the entire budget of OSHA, which is tasked with monitoring the conditions in his workplaces. “You add on the fact that he considers himself to be a master of the universe and these rules just don’t apply to people like him,” Jordan Barab, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor at OSHA, told me. “There’s a lot of underreporting in industry in general. And Elon Musk kind of seems to raise that to an art form.” Garrett Brown, a former field-compliance inspector at California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, added, “We have a bad health-and-safety situation throughout the country. And it’s worse in companies run by people like Elon Musk, who was ideologically opposed to the idea of government enforcement of public-health regulations.”

In March, 2020, as pandemic lockdowns began, Musk e-mailed Tesla employees, telling them that he intended to violate orders and show up at work, and downplaying the significance of COVID-19. Soon after, he lost an initial fight to keep a factory in Alameda County—Tesla’s most productive in the U.S.—open. That April, after county officials extended shelter-in-place orders, Musk was on a conference call with outside financial analysts. His rhetoric became nakedly political, to an extent that would have been uncharacteristic just a few years earlier. “I would call it forcibly imprisoning people in their homes against all of their constitutional rights,” he told the analysts, speaking of the lockdowns. “What the fuck?” he added. “It’s an outrage. An outrage. . . . This is fascist. This is not democratic. This is not freedom. Give people back their goddam freedom.” The pandemic seems to have sparked a pronounced shift in Musk. The lockdowns represented an example of what Hoffman told me Musk considered to be a cardinal sin: “getting in the way of the mission.”

The following month, Musk sent a series of vitriolic tweets, threatening to file suit against Alameda County, to move Tesla’s headquarters, and to flout the rules and reopen his factory, all of which he eventually did. The county essentially rubber-stamped the reopening soon afterward—a far cry from what Musk had invited. “I will be on the line with everyone else,” he had tweeted, at the height of his frustration. “If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me.”

Musk has, for much of his public life, presented himself as a centrist. “I’m socially very liberal,” he told the technology reporter Kara Swisher in 2020. “And then economically right of center, maybe, or center.” He has said that he donated to Hillary Clinton, and voted for both her and Joe Biden. But, in recent years, the more radical perspective that characterized his diatribes about Covid has come to the fore. In March, 2022, Twitter restricted the account of the satirical Web site the Babylon Bee, after the site misgendered a government official. The next day, in texts later disclosed during the Twitter-acquisition process, Musk’s contact “TJ” (identified by Bloomberg as his ex-wife Talulah Riley) expressed frustration with the development and urged him to purchase Twitter to “fight woke-ism.” The following week, Musk polled his followers about whether Twitter respected free speech and, in a phone call to the Babylon Bee’s C.E.O., joked about buying the platform. Finally, in April, 2022, he offered forty-four billion dollars for the company. Almost immediately, he tried to back out of the deal, prompting Twitter to sue. After months of legal proceedings, Musk resumed the acquisition process, and in October he assumed control of the company.

“Given unprovoked attacks by leading Democrats against me & a very cold shoulder to Tesla & SpaceX, I intend to vote Republican in November,” he tweeted last year. By the time he bought Twitter, he was urging his followers to vote along similar lines, and appearing to back Ron DeSantis, whose candidacy he helped launch in a technically disastrous Twitter live event. Although Musk’s teen-age daughter, Vivian, has come out as trans, he has embraced anti-trans sentiment, saying that he would lobby to criminalize “irreversible” gender-affirming care for children. (Vivian recently changed her last name, saying in a legal filing, “I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form.”) Musk started spreading misinformation on the platform: he shared theories that the physical attack on Paul Pelosi, the husband of the former Speaker of the House, had followed a meeting with a male prostitute, and retweeted suggestions that reports accurately identifying a mass shooter as a white supremacist were a “psyop.” Some people who know Musk well still struggle to make sense of his political shift. “There was nothing political about him ever,” a close associate told me. “I’ve been around him for a long time, and had lots of deep conversations with the man, at all hours of the day—never heard a fucking word about this.”

When Musk arrived at Twitter, he immediately gutted the company’s staff, reducing the number of employees by about fifty per cent. One person who kept his job was Yoel Roth, the company’s head of trust and safety. Roth, who is in his mid-thirties, is gay, Jewish, and liberal. His department was responsible for determining Twitter’s rules; during the Trump Administration, he became embroiled in the culture wars. After the company began rolling out a new fact-checking policy that labelled two of Trump’s tweets as misinformation, Kellyanne Conway, President Trump’s aide, went on “Fox & Friends” and read out Roth’s full name and spelled his username, adding, “He’s about to get more followers.” Trump then held up a New York Post cover mocking Roth, and Twitter users began recirculating tweets that Roth had written criticizing conservative candidates.

But when Musk took over he resisted calls to fire Roth. “We’ve all made some questionable tweets, me more than most, but I want to be clear that I support Yoel,” he tweeted in October, 2022. “My sense is that he has high integrity, and we are all entitled to our political beliefs.” That evening, Roth messaged Musk on Signal, thanking him. Musk responded, “You have my full support,” and, the next day, he followed up with a screenshot of a tweet from Roth that described Mitch McConnell as “a bag of farts.” Musk added, “Haha, I totally agree.”

But the cuts that Musk had instituted quickly took a toll on the company. Employees had been informed of their termination via brusque, impersonal e-mails—Musk is now being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars by employees who say that they are owed additional severance pay—and the remaining staffers were abruptly ordered to return to work in person. Twitter’s business model was also in question, since Musk had alienated advertisers and invited a flood of fake accounts by reinventing the platform’s verification process. On November 10th, Roth sent a brief resignation e-mail. When his departure became public, Musk texted, asking to talk. “I[t] would mean a lot if you would consider remaining at Twitter,” he wrote. The two spoke that night, and Roth declined to return. Days later, he published an Op-Ed in the Times, questioning the future of user safety on the platform. (Twitter did not respond to requests for comment.)

Soon afterward, Musk replied to a Twitter user surfacing a 2010 tweet from Roth, in which he’d shared a link to a Salon article about a teacher’s being charged with having sex with an eighteen-year-old student and asked, “Can high school students ever meaningfully consent to sex with their teachers?”

“That explains a lot,” Musk tweeted in reply. Minutes later, he posted an image showing a portion of Roth’s doctoral dissertation, which focussed on the gay-hookup app Grindr and its user data. In the excerpt, Roth argued that such platforms will inevitably be used by people under eighteen, so they should do more to keep those individuals safe. “Looks like Yoel is in favor of children being able to access adult internet services,” Musk wrote.

The attack fit a pattern: Musk’s trolling has increasingly taken on the vernacular of hard-right social media, in which grooming, pedophilia, and human trafficking are associated with liberalism. In 2018, when a Thai youth soccer team was trapped in a cave, Musk travelled to Thailand to offer a custom-made miniature submarine to rescuers. The head of the rescue operation declined, and Musk lashed out on Twitter, questioning the expertise of the rescuers. After one of them, Vernon Unsworth, referred to the offer as a “P.R. stunt,” Musk called him a “pedo guy.” (Unsworth sued Musk for defamation, characterizing the harassment he received from Musk’s followers as “a life sentence without parole.” A judge ruled in favor of Musk, who argued that he hadn’t been accusing Unsworth of actual pedophilia, just trying to insult him.)

Musk’s tweet about Roth got nearly seventeen thousand quote tweets and retweets. “The moment that it went from being a moderation conversation to being a Pizzagate conversation, the risk level changed,” Roth told me. “I spent my career looking at the absolute worst things that the Internet could do to people. Certainly, worse things have happened to people. But this is probably up there.” Roth and his husband were forced to flee their house, a two-bedroom in El Cerrito, California, that they’d purchased just two years earlier. “And then as we are, like, packing our stuff and leaving and getting the dog loaded into the car and whatever, like, the Daily Mail publishes an article that gives people more or less a map to my house,” Roth said. “At that point, we’re, like, ‘Oh, we’re leaving this house potentially for the last time.’ ”

This summer, Twitter’s cheerful blue bird logo came down from the roof of the company’s headquarters, in San Francisco, and was replaced with a strobing “X.” The new entity is a marriage between two parts of Musk. There’s his career-long quest to create an everything app—integrating services ranging from communication to banking and shopping, and emulating products, like WeChat, that are popular in Asia. Sitting alongside that pragmatic goal is a newer, more confusing side of Musk, embodied by his desire to take back the town square from what he sees as woke discourse. Twitter has become a private company, so it’s difficult to assess its finances, but numerous prominent advertisers have departed, and Meta recently launched Threads, a competitor that shamelessly emulates the old Twitter, and broke records for downloads. Musk threatened to sue, then challenged Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s founder and C.E.O., to a cage match, pledging to live-stream it and donate the proceeds to charity. (Zuckerberg has accepted. Musk has delayed committing to a date, citing a back injury.) The illuminated sign atop X’s headquarters, after complaints to the Department of Building Inspection, came down as quickly as it had gone up.

Some of Musk’s associates connected his erratic behavior to efforts to self-medicate. Musk, who says he now spends much of his time in a modest house in the wetlands of South Texas, near a SpaceX facility, confessed, in an interview last year, “I feel quite lonely.” He has said that his career consists of “great highs, terrible lows and unrelenting stress.” One close colleague told me, “His life just sucks. It’s so stressful. He’s just so dedicated to these companies. He goes to sleep and wakes up answering e-mails. Ninety-nine per cent of people will never know someone that obsessed, and with that high a tolerance for sacrifice in their personal life.”

In 2018, the Times reported that members of the Tesla board had grown concerned about Musk’s use of the prescription sleep aid Ambien, which can cause hallucinations. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that he uses ketamine, which has gained popularity both as a depression treatment and as a party drug, and several people familiar with his habits have confirmed this. Musk, who smoked pot on Joe Rogan’s podcast, prompting a NASA safety review of SpaceX, has, perhaps understandably, declined to comment on the reporting that he uses ketamine, but he has not disputed it. “Zombifying people with SSRIs for sure happens way too much,” he tweeted, referring to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, another category of depression treatment. “From what I’ve seen with friends, ketamine taken occasionally is a better option.” Associates suggested that Musk’s use has escalated in recent years, and that the drug, alongside his isolation and his increasingly embattled relationship with the press, might contribute to his tendency to make chaotic and impulsive statements and decisions. Amit Anand, a leading ketamine researcher, told me that it can contribute to unpredictable behavior. “A little bit of ketamine has an effect similar to alcohol. It can cause disinhibition, where you do and say things you otherwise would not,” he said. “At higher doses, it has another effect, which is dissociation: you feel detached from your body and surroundings.” He added, “You can feel grandiose and like you have special powers or special talents. People do impulsive things, they could do inadvisable things at work. The impact depends on the kind of work. For a librarian, there’s less risk. If you’re a pilot, it can cause big problems.”

On July 12th, Musk announced xAI, his entry into a field that promises to alter much about life as we know it. He tweeted an image of the new company’s Web site, featuring a characteristically theatrical mission statement: the firm’s goal, he said, was “to understand the true nature of the universe.” In the image, Musk highlighted the date and explained its significance. “7 + 12 + 23 = 42,” the text read. “42 is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.” It was a reference to “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.” In the series, an immensely complex artificial intelligence is asked to answer that question and, after computing for millions of years, answers with Adams’s most famous punch line: 42. “I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you’ve never actually known what the question is,” the computer says. Earth itself, and all the organisms on it, are ultimately revealed to be a still larger computer, built to clarify the question. Adams does not portray this satirical vision as positive. Musk’s announcement suggested more optimism: “Once you know the right question to ask, the answer is often the easy part.”

Musk has been involved in artificial intelligence for years. In 2015, he was one of a handful of tech leaders, including Hoffman and Thiel, who funded OpenAI, then a nonprofit initiative. (It now has a for-profit subsidiary.) OpenAI had a less grandiose and more cautious mission statement than xAI’s: to “advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity.” In the first few years of OpenAI, Musk grew unhappy with the company. He said that his efforts at Tesla to incorporate A.I. created a conflict of interest, and several people involved told me that this was true. However, they also said that Musk was frustrated by his lack of control and, as Semafor reported earlier this year, that he had attempted to take over OpenAI. Musk still defends his centrality to the company’s origins, stressing his financial contributions in its fledgling days. (The exact figures are unclear: Musk has given estimates that range from fifty million to a hundred million dollars.) Throughout his involvement, Musk seemed preoccupied with control, credit, and rivalries. He made incendiary remarks about Demis Hassabis, the head of Google’s DeepMind A.I. initiative, and, later, about Microsoft’s competing effort. He thought that OpenAI wasn’t sufficiently competitive, at one point telling colleagues that it had a “0%” chance of “being relevant.” Musk left the company in 2018, reneging on a commitment to further fund OpenAI, one of the individuals involved told me. “Basically, he goes, ‘You’re all a bunch of jackasses,’ and he leaves,” Hoffman said. The withdrawal was devastating. “It was very tough,” Altman, the head of OpenAI, said. “I had to reorient a lot of my life and time to make sure we had enough funding.” OpenAI went on to become a leader in the field, introducing ChatGPT last year. Musk has made a habit of trashing the company, wondering repeatedly, in public interviews, why he hasn’t received a return on his investment, given the company’s for-profit arm. “If this is legal, why doesn’t everyone do it?” he tweeted recently.

It is difficult to say whether Musk’s interest in A.I. is driven by scientific wonder and altruism or by a desire to dominate a new and potentially powerful industry. Several entrepreneurs who have co-founded businesses with Musk suggested that the arrival of Google and Microsoft in the field had made it a new brass ring, as space and electric vehicles had been earlier. Musk has maintained that he is motivated by his fear of the technology’s destructive potential. In a podcast earlier this year, Ari Emanuel, the head of the Hollywood agency W.M.E., recalled Musk joking about an A.I.-dominated future. “Ari, do you have dogs?” Musk asked him. “Well, here’s what A.I. is to you. You’re the dog.” In March, Musk, along with dozens of tech leaders, signed an open letter calling for a six-month pause in the development of advanced A.I. technology. “Contemporary AI systems are now becoming human-competitive at general tasks, and we must ask ourselves: Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth?” the letter said. “Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete and replace us?”

Yet in the period during which Musk endorsed a pause, he was working to build xAI, recruiting from major competitors, including OpenAI, and even, according to someone with knowledge of the conversation, contacting leadership at Nvidia, the dominant maker of chips used in A.I. The month the letter was distributed, Musk completed the registrations for xAI. He has said little about how the company will differ from preëxisting A.I. initiatives, but generally has framed it in terms of competition. “I will create a third option, although starting very late in the game of course,” he told the Washington Post. “That third option hopefully does more good than harm.” Through A.I. research and development already under way at Tesla, and the trove of data he now commands through Twitter (which he recently barred OpenAI from scraping in order to train its chatbots), he may have some advantage, as he applies his sensibilities and his world view to that race. Hoffman told me, “His whole approach to A.I. is: A.I. can only be saved if I deliver, if I build it.” As humanity creates A.I. in its own image, Hoffman argued, the principles and priorities of the leaders in the field will matter: “We want the construction of this to be not people with Messiah complexes.”

At one point in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide,” Adams introduces the architects of the Earth supercomputer. They’re powerful beings who have been living among us, disguised as mice. At first, they were motivated by simple curiosity. But seeking the question made them famous, and they began considering talk-show and lecture deals. In the end, Earth is demolished in the name of commerce, and their path to existential clarity along with it. The mice greet this with a shrug, mouth vague platitudes, and go on the talk-show circuit anyway. Musk isn’t peddling pabulum. His initiatives have real substance. But he also wants to be on the show—or, better yet, to be the show himself.

In the open letter, alongside questions about the apocalyptic potential of artificial intelligence was one that reflects on the sectors of government and industry that Musk has come to shape. “Should we risk loss of control of our civilization?” he and his fellow-entrepreneurs wrote. “Such decisions must not be delegated to unelected tech leaders.” Published in the print edition of the August 28, 2023, issue.

#Elon Musk #Ronan Farrow #the new yorker #SpaceX #tesla #starlink #ukraine #twitter #lllllinks

[newstfionline]

Monday, March 18, 2024

Trump Says Some Migrants Are ‘Not People’ and Predicts a ‘Blood Bath’ if He Loses (NYT) Former President Donald J. Trump, at an event on Saturday ostensibly meant to boost his preferred candidate in Ohio’s Republican Senate primary race, gave a freewheeling speech in which he used dehumanizing language to describe immigrants, maintained a steady stream of insults and vulgarities and predicted that the United States would never have another election if he did not win in November. While discussing the U.S. economy and its auto industry, Mr. Trump promised to place tariffs on cars manufactured abroad if he won in November. He added: “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a blood bath for the whole—that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a blood bath for the country.”

A Shooter’s Parents Were Convicted of Manslaughter. What Happens Next? (NYT) When the prosecutor Karen McDonald decided to press criminal charges against the parents of the teenager who carried out the deadliest school shooting in Michigan’s history, even some members of her own staff expressed doubts, fearing the case was too ambitious to win. “It seemed a huge reach to try to hold the parents responsible,” said Linda C. Fentiman, a professor emerita at Pace University who is an expert in health law and criminal law. “This was new legal territory.” But in the end, prosecutors were able to convince two separate juries that they had met their burden of proof. Now the question is whether the cases will affect the legal terrain around criminal law, parental responsibility and gun legislation.

Musk’s SpaceX is building spy satellite network for US intelligence agency, sources say (Reuters) SpaceX is building a network of hundreds of spy satellites under a classified contract with a U.S. intelligence agency, five sources familiar with the program said, demonstrating deepening ties between billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk’s space company and national security agencies. The network is being built by SpaceX’s Starshield business unit under a $1.8 billion contract signed in 2021 with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an intelligence agency that manages spy satellites, the sources said. The plans show the extent of SpaceX’s involvement in U.S. intelligence and military projects and illustrate a deeper Pentagon investment into vast, low-Earth orbiting satellite systems aimed at supporting ground forces. If successful, the sources said the program would significantly advance the ability of the U.S. government and military to quickly spot potential targets almost anywhere on the globe.

Driving With Mr. Gil: A Retiree Teaches Afghan Women the Rules of the Road (NYT) Bibifatima Akhundzada wove a white Chevy Spark through downtown Modesto, Calif., on a recent morning, practicing turns, braking and navigating intersections. “Go, go, go” said her driving instructor, as she slowed down through an open intersection. “Don’t stop. Don’t stop.” Her teacher was Gil Howard, an 82-year-old retired professor who happened upon a second career as a driving instructor. And no ordinary instructor. In Modesto, Calif., he is the go-to teacher for women from Afghanistan, where driving is off limits for virtually all of them. In recent years, Mr. Howard has taught some 400 women in the 5,000-strong Afghan community in this part of California’s Central Valley. According to local lore, thanks to “Mr. Gil,” as he is known in Modesto, more Afghan women likely drive in and around the city of about 220,000 than in all Afghanistan. For many Americans, learning to drive is a rite of passage, a skill associated with freedom. For Afghan immigrants it can be a lifeline, especially in cities where distances are vast and public transportation limited. So when Mr. Howard realized the difference driving made to the Afghan women, teaching them became a calling, the instruction provided free of charge.

Looting is on the rise in Haiti (AP) As Haiti once again spirals into chaos with another wave of gang violence, a number of government and aid agencies reported Saturday that their facilities and aid supplies have been looted. Gangs have raged through Haiti in recent weeks, attacking key institutions and shutting down the main international airport. The chaos has pushed many Haitians to the brink of famine and left many more in increasingly desperate conditions. On Saturday, UNICEF said one of its containers containing “essential items for maternal, neonatal, and child survival, including resuscitators and related equipment” were looted in the capital of Port-au-Prince’s main port, which was breached by gangs last week. That same day, the Guatemala’s Foreign Ministry said that the offices of its honorary consul in Haiti was ransacked.

Russian exiles bring banyas and blinis to Buenos Aires (Reuters) When Ilia Gafarov and Nadia Gafarova host the grand opening of their “banya”, a traditional Russian sauna, in April, they hope it will help make a permanent home of their adopted city of Buenos Aires. The couple, a former banker and recruiter from Russia’s eastern port city of Vladivostok, moved to Argentina with their two daughters nine months ago, part of a wave of migration from Russia to Latin America since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. As Russia’s war in Ukraine enters its third year, a growing number of Russian families are putting down roots around Latin America, according to previously unreported residency visa approval data from five countries and interviews with a dozen exiles and experts. Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, granted temporary or permanent residence last year to a total of almost 9,000 Russians, the data show, up from just over 1,000 in 2020.

A volcano in Iceland is erupting for the fourth time in 3 months, sending plumes of lava skywards (AP) A volcano in Iceland erupted Saturday evening for the fourth time in three months, sending orange jets of lava into the night sky. Iceland’s Meteorological Office said the eruption opened a fissure in the earth about 3 kilometers (almost 2 miles) long between Stóra-Skógfell and Hagafell mountains on the Reykjanes Peninsula. The Met Office had warned for weeks that magma—semi-molten rock—was accumulating under the ground, making an eruption likely. Hundreds of people were evacuated from the Blue Lagoon thermal spa, one of Iceland’s top tourist attractions, when the eruption began, national broadcaster RUV said.

Millions Battle Long Covid Aftermath (Spiegel) International Long Covid Awareness Day marks the focus on the plight of individuals with Long Covid and the lack of effective treatments. An estimated 2.5 million patients in Germany suffer from Long Covid, experiencing symptoms that last over four weeks post-infection, including breathing difficulties, fatigue, and neurological issues. The German government has earmarked up to 81 million euros for Long Covid research and patient care services between 2024 and 2028, but no treatments for Long Covid have been approved, highlighting an urgent need for more specialized care and support for those affected.

Putin is poised to rule Russia for 6 more years (AP/WSJ) Russian President Vladimir Putin is poised to extend nearly a quarter century of rule for six more years on Sunday. The three-day election that began Friday has taken place in a tightly controlled environment where no public criticism of Putin or his war in Ukraine is allowed. The 71-year-old Russian leader faces three token rivals from Kremlin-friendly parties who have refrained from any criticism of his 24-year rule or his full-scale invasion of Ukraine two years ago. Analysts who follow the country’s politics say Putin needs to win big if he wants a free hand in reviving what he says are Russia’s conservative Orthodox traditions and, ultimately, prevailing in Ukraine and in his broader confrontation with the West.

U.N. Documents More Than Two Dozen Attacks on Gazans Waiting for Aid Since January (NYT) The United Nations human rights office has documented more than two dozen attacks on Gazans waiting for desperately needed aid since January, with hunger spreading as a result of Israel’s near complete siege, preventing most food and water from entering the tiny enclave. In a number of U.N. reports and statements, the office has documented at least 26 such attacks since mid-January. They include Thursday night’s attack on hundreds of Palestinians who were waiting at the Kuwait traffic circle in Gaza City for an expected convoy of aid trucks. Gazan health officials accused Israeli forces of carrying out a “targeted” attack on the crowd that killed 20, and three witnesses described shelling at the scene. The Israeli military blamed Palestinian gunmen for the bloodshed and said that it was continuing to review the episode.

As Gaza war rages, U.S. military footprint expands across Middle East (Washington Post) Lt. Col. Jeremy Anderson tilted up the nose of his U.S. Air Force C-130 and tipped 16 pallets of emergency food aid out of the cargo bay and into the sky above northern Gaza. Thousands of miles away, off the coast of Yemen, U.S. fighter jets and attack helicopters roared off the flight deck of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, often just minutes apart, to combat Houthi fighters attacking ships in and around the Red Sea. In both places, U.S. service members said their missions were unexpected, changing as the White House has moved rapidly to contain wider fallout from the Israel-Gaza war. But now, along with a U.S. Army crew on its way to Gaza to build a floating pier, they are firmly part of the U.S. military’s expanding footprint in the Middle East. It’s a region President Biden had hoped to de-emphasize—and one where American involvement has often been devastating and costly. The war in Gaza and worsening humanitarian crisis there have taught Biden a lesson many presidents have learned before: It’s not so easy to quit the Middle East.

Niger junta announces end to military relationship with United States (Washington Post) The military junta ruling Niger—which until last year was seen as a major ally of the United States in West Africa—announced Saturday on state television that it was ending its military relationship with the United States. The announcement by a spokesman for the junta government, which overthrew Niger’s democratically elected president last year, came directly on the heels of a visit to the capital Niamey by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Molly Phee, the State Department’s top official for African affairs, and Gen. Michael E. Langley, who heads U.S. military operations in Africa. That mission was among diplomatic efforts by the United States to find ways to work with military governments in the region. But in the statement read on television, Amadou Abdramane, the junta’s spokesman, said the Nigerien government “denounced with force the condescending attitude” of the head of the recent U.S. delegation, which he said had undermined the long relationship between the two countries.

South Sudan shutters all schools as it prepares for an extreme heat wave (AP) South Sudan’s government is closing down all schools starting Monday as the country prepares for a wave of extreme heat expected to last two weeks. The health and education ministries advised parents to keep all children indoors as temperatures are expected to soar to 45 degrees Celsius (113 Fahrenheit), in a statement late Saturday, They warned that any school found open during that time would have its registration withdrawn, but didn’t specify how long the schools would remain shuttered. Civil conflict has plagued the east African country which also suffered from drought and flooding, making living conditions difficult for residents.

#headlines #news

[lunarsilkscreen]

TW: Judicial Review (This goes off the rails after the marker)

Now there's a few strange arguments that crop up whenever the subject of U.S. law is brought up; two of them are: The Constitution is just a document that only matters federally, and not to the states. And the other is that the Judiciary Branch has "too much power" in their ability to create laws.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Marbury v Madison was one such case to establish the judiciary's true power.

It found that the courts had the ability to strike down any law that was unconstitutional. Which to some means "They have the power to strike down any law they disagree with". Or, you know; any law that disagrees with the constitution.

It found that federal courts could take over a case where a defendant was prosecuted in a state that he didn't live in. Which serves a few good purposes; one is that federal laws are typically *less* restrictive than state laws, and many lobbyists pursue new legislation whose purpose *is* to limit states rights over their constituents.

Which; if you disagreed with any part of that paragraph... I have news for you about your willingness to give up individual rights for the State's rights over you.

"States rights to do what..? Sign me up for the iCentipad program? Sheesh..."

This power to disagree with congresses curated understanding of the constitution, or unfamiliarity with how legislation may conflict with the constitution at scale, Is an important one.

Especially since today it has been used as a tool to take the rights of bodily autonomy *away* from individuals, without consent, and without remorse.

This has set-up a road, directly to the joke that we've been making for years; What if that lack of individual autonomy *included* forced installation of Elon Musk's brain chip?

We've already laid the foundation; women, both cis and trans have no rights over the body. Autistic people *can't* consent because we feel they're lost causes anyway.

And the proof of yesterday; Mental Asylum's willingness to perform lobotomies to fix people.

All of that suggests; if Elon Brands his chip as a mental "cure-all". Who's to say who should or shouldn't take it first?

The people without autonomy will. For "Science". And then; we'll walk once more down the path of the scientists around the world who saw their "patients" as nothing more than "dogs" or "rats" when they performed their experiments. Their very real mutilation experiments, against the will of the "patients".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Rails end here. There's no additional substance after this point. It is only void.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I say this because the words will get twisted "WHAT ABOUT THE TRANS MUTILATION!?"

And I'll say; point out where it is being done against an individual's will; and I will agree with you that it should not be done.

There's a difference between taking a bunch of people up off the street to perform whatever you feel like; and somebody doing it willingly.

And then the subsequent follow up question comes up; should we allow cash payment from "willing patients" to participate in such experiments. Like; what if Fin5ster all of sudden needs a cash in-flux of a couple millions of dollars; so he puts up a Kickstarter, and you know some of the finsimps want this way more than Fin does.

And he just goes all in, only to change his mind again; do we punish him legally for not doing the legal thing he agreed to? Or do we punish him for willfully lying to the finsimps?

Or do we finally agree; that virtual contracts just aren't validateable instead?

The real question that seems to have found its way around the world; what about all these men doing it because there isn't enough women in China? This is of course why China is trafficking all the women.

(it is not, unless it is. Then that assumption was wrong.)

Which many assume, that in a capitalist society; would lead to many taking the payday. Or the 'L' in some bros dictionary.

Or that trope of the "Mafia Punishment". Them sending you to some places where they'd give you a perfect surgery and turn you into an idol just to recoup some costs.

If only such a fantasy were real. But they'd more likely punish you with cement shoes instead of that. I just don't see the Mafia, or even the Triad willing to spend *more* money on somebody that would only prove to be net loss in the long run. You know what I'm feeling?

I'm sure there's at least one person in the world who would be more valuable turned into an idol or a prostitute; but they'd have to really have pissed somebody off.

They're the people *already* in charge of trafficking. Like; they have plan B, and willing inductees. AND they already don't follow the laws...

Somebody is still talking about how some Chinese legislation is done by Eunuchs because they "Have no desire for Dynasty". Which can also be translated as "asexual people" and "women over 40". Whichever.

[sindrafalcone]

Rant

Being part of a practically “dead” fandom sucks...

Let’s face reality. Bigbang is essentially disbanded. That’s the truth of it. They might not have used that terminology, but it’s clear as day.

GD is doing fashion things & has the promise of a new solo. And he’s the only one still under contract with YG.

Youngbae has already blessed us with his lovely voice & I love him for it. But he’s on the Blacklabel..

Daesung is striking out on his own. It’s brave of him & I’m super proud. Can’t wait to see what he does next.

And Seunghyun... *sigh*

I have to admit that, as a TOP biased person, I am disappointed in his direction. But if it’s what he wants to do and makes him happy and less stressed, then I’m happy for him. But it’s not something I like. If anything, it’s pushing me further away from him. He was teasing new music, but now that “dear Moon” is going on... that’s ALL he posts about. It’s practically become his whole personality. And I have this horrible gut feeling that IF (big IF) this thing actually ever happens, Elon Musk is going to be responsible for my bias blowing up & I’m just not prepared to handle the that.

I will always be VIP at heart. Until Whenever. And I hope that some magical day, they can release music as four again. 

BUT...

I think that if I’m going to stay in Kpop, I’m gonna need a new group to focus on. (maybe even multiple)  I can’t sit around and wait forever on a comeback that will most likely never happen.

#bigbang #kpop rant

[exceptionally-stupid]

I had a dream that instead of colonizing mars, Elon musk decided he was going to colonize the moon instead because it would be slightly cheaper. He actually succeeded in a way, even making a breathable atmosphere up there, but also made it into a giant American suburb, of which none of the houses were ever bought.

Going there was actually super cheap. Like you could go there on a day trip and it would cost less than $200 for the entire thing. I guess maybe because he wanted people to buy houses there or something, but let’s focus on the dream.

What was considered by many to be the biggest failure in it, however, and the most vivid part of the dream, is that in the whole thing he established only 1 lunar restaurant, which was an unfathomably shitty hot dog restaurant called, like, moon hotdogz or something. I can’t remember exactly how expensive it was other than that google rated it 2/3$. It didn’t even fit in with everything, it looked like one of those restaurants that’s a food truck that never moves and has things built around it, covered in Americana decor, which in real life might even be good. Everything else looked like either a minimalist airport, a green to enter the neighborhood, or the aforementioned suburb. It stylistically Did Not Fit.

The food sucked of course, but the quality was also unhealthy terrible. Like the workers started printing the menus with labels saying which disease you would contract from which menu item you ate, without even saying what was on the hotdog. “The classic dog will give you salmonella. The chicago style dog will give you prions. The Sichuan pepper dog will give you botulism. The Icelandic style will give you salmonella and botulism. The curried style will give you narcolepsy. That’s not even a disease you contract from food, we just know that everyone who’s eaten it suddenly gets chronic narcolepsy and we don’t know why. The bacon style gives you…” This would happen even with, like, the sprite. Only in this restaurant, nowhere on earth. Musk never did anything to remove the narcolepsy or anything because, since there weren’t any laws on the moon, he didn’t have to.

The food was so famously bad, that McDonald’s CEO, who was Ronald McDonald, made a statement about it. Something along the lines of “Our food is shitty. What all that propaganda said about it, with the pink slime and diarrhea is all true. None of you should eat there given the state if the ice cream machines alone. I would never touch the stuff. That it’s all so artificially flavored enough that it’s gaslit all of you into thinking it’s edible is what I consider my greatest accomplishment in life, and my greatest fear. But I feel better, knowing that no matter what I do, it will never be as bad as Moon Hotdogz.”

One of the greatest flaws is that it was super expensive to run. Because all the food supply comes from earth and he refilled it every day for billions of dollars. Just because it cost so little for people to go there, didn’t mean it cost him so little to make it happen, and for whatever reason, Moon Hotdogz cost the most of anything, and I have to reiterate that it was Not An Expensive Restaurant to eat there. But he was so adamant about it staying in business, which it never closed because Musk is so rich. But if you broke down Musk’s stock portfolio, it would be like 15% space ex, 15% tesla, 10% twitter, 5% his lunar real estate company, 15% other things, 40% Moon Hotdogz. It had 12 seats in all.

It did so poorly and he tried so hard to keep it in business that when I went on a day trip there, just to see what the moon was like, the tour guide of the space-port was like, “Mr. Musk isn’t in his office right now. He’s working on something else.” And when I broke away from the group to sit down to eat at Moon Hotdogz because I hadn’t heard about it in this part of the dream yet I looked through the serving window and Musk was sadly working a griddle with like 3 other people in the kitchen. I didn’t order anything. But a group of Musk Fanboys™️ came in and ordered. They sat down and ate, and one of them just keeled over and died in the middle of the meal from the disgusting food snd the other ones just got all excited and hyped up like something great just happened and tried to get his autograph from that, but he just ignored them and kept working the griddle with a sad look in his eye.

This is easily me most vivid dream to date and I have no fucking clue why.

#elon musk #moon hotdogz #i’m sure I’m missing some details #this probs won’t pop off

[mariacallous]

Elon Musk hasn’t been sighted at the picket lines in Missouri, Ohio, or Michigan, where autoworkers are striking against the Big Three US carmakers. Yet the influence of Musk and his non-unionized company Tesla have been everywhere since the United Auto Workers called the strike last week. In some ways, Tesla—the world’s most valuable automaker by market capitalization—set the whole thing in motion.

Tesla’s pioneering electric vehicles kicked off a new era that has turned the entire auto industry on its head. In a scramble to compete with Tesla and make that transition, the legacy automakers targeted by the current strike, General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis, have each pledged billions in global investment and have begun dramatically restructuring their operations. For workers, the “green jobs” being created can be scarcer and worse paying. Electric vehicle powertrains have many fewer moving parts than conventional gas-powered ones, and so they require 30 percent fewer vehicle assembly hours, according to one estimate. Plants that make EV batteries are generally outside the core, unionized auto supply chain. The United Auto Workers has seen a dramatic drop in membership due to jobs moving outside the US—it lost 45 percent of its members between 2001 and 2022. A future with more electric vehicles could mean fewer union jobs overall. “This strike is about electrification,” says Mark Barrott, an automotive analyst at the Michigan-based consultancy Plante Moran.

The new assembly plants that the legacy automakers need to pull off the transition have been stood up mostly in US states hostile to union organizing, such as Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama. And because many of these plants are joint ventures between automakers and foreign battery companies, they are not subject to previous union contracts.

The UAW did not respond to a request for comment, but UAW president Shawn Fain told CNBC last week that the electric transition can’t leave workers behind. “Workers deserve their share of equity in this economy,” he said.

Tesla’s rise over recent years has also put ever-ratcheting pressure on the legacy automakers to cut costs. Including benefits, Musk’s non-unionized EV company spends $45 per hour on labor, significantly less than the $63 per hour spent in the Big Three, according to industry analysts.

Musk’s willingness to upend auto manufacturing shibboleths has also forced his legacy competitors to seek new efficiencies. Tesla led the way in building large-scale car casts, stamping out very large metal components in one go rather than making a series of small casts that have to be joined together. And it pioneered an automotive chassis building process that can be easily adapted to produce different makes and models.

Tesla’s Silicon Valley roots also helped it become the first automaker to envision the car as a software-first, iPhone-like “platform” that can be modified via over-the-air updates. And the company aims to automate more of its factories, and extract more of the materials it needs to build its batteries itself.

Tesla’s novel production ideas could soon lead the company to put even more pressure on legacy automakers. Musk said earlier this year that Tesla plans to build a new, smaller vehicle that can be made for half the production cost of its most popular (and cheapest) vehicle, the Model 3.

Musk says a lot of things, and many don’t come to pass. (The world is still waiting for the 1 million Tesla robotaxis promised by the end of 2020.) But Tesla has been disruptive enough to leave legacy automakers, including Detroit’s Big Three, “in a quest for capital,” says Marick Masters, who studies labor and workplace issues at Wayne State University's School of Business. Detroit’s automakers have made good money in the past decade—some $250 billion in profits—but also paid a significant chunk of it out in dividends. Pressure from Tesla and the EV transition it catalyzed has left them feeling as if they need every penny they can corral to keep afloat as the industry changes.

“They have little money to concede for union demands,” says Masters. The UAW’s wants include significantly higher wages, especially for workers who have joined the companies since their Great Recession and bankruptcy-era reorganizations, which left some with less pay and reduced pension and health benefits.

So far, the UAW has shown little patience for the idea that the automakers it is pressuring are cash-strapped and under competitive pressure. “Competition is a code word for race to the bottom, and I'm not concerned about Elon Musk building more rocket ships so he can fly into outer space and stuff,” UAW president Fain told CNBC last week when asked about pressure from Tesla. He has argued that production workers should receive the same pay raise received by auto executives over recent years.

When automakers have taken the opposite tack, insisting that they’re well capitalized and making plans to put them ahead of the electric car maker—well, that set up conditions for this strike too. The three American automakers are forecasted to make $32 billion in profits this year, a slight dip from last year’s 10-year high. “The more they toot their own horns about profitability, the more the union looks at them and says, ‘We want our rightful share,’” says Masters.

Tesla did not respond to a request for comment, but Musk has, in typical fashion, chimed in. He posted on X last week to compare working conditions at his companies with the competition, apparently seeking to turn the dispute he helped foment into a recruiting pitch. “Tesla and SpaceX factories have a great vibe. We encourage playing music and having some fun,” he wrote. “We pay more than the UAW btw, but performance expectations are also higher.” A UAW attempt to organize Tesla workers in 2017 and 2018, as the company struggled to produce its Model 3, failed. The National Labor Board ruled that Tesla violated labor laws during the organizing drive; the carmaker has appealed the decision.

[jentlemahae]

another controversial opinion and maybe a delicate one so I’d like this to be approached with seriousness.

*

my fears about lisa’s career being controlled by the arnaults rings true little by little cuz what do you mean lisa is going to release a book about her life under the french publisher JC Lattès who happens to be part of LVMH publishing house… i am sorry but, what? why would she do that in france when she could’ve gone for any worldwide publisher?? and why French writers at that? why are all of her gigs limited to France now? at this point, if blinks don’t think the arnaults (mostly frederic) are controlling a lot of her career choices — i think we are being delusional. every single solo content we have gotten from lisa since the end of bp’s tour and the contracts were getting negotiating have been in French/around Frederic.

i don’t think it’s smart for her to get so dependent of him to get certain deals because at this point we need to be real and accept that a lot of those french gigs she’s getting is because of him. he is there at every single event. LVMH is sponsoring almost (if not all) of those events. and all of the ceos from all the LVMH divisions suddenly posting her on their instagram feels like is more about her involvement with frederic than anything else. there’s not separation between romantic and professional relationship there because he is technically her boss and the heir to all of the brands that she endorses. the power imbalance there is crazy. this isn’t some random dude. and this dependency is really dangerous.

I get that she’s probably in the blind state of the relationship but someone needs to advice her.

it’s so bizarre seeing all this. looking at jennie successfully opening her label and starting this whole new journey with her own freedom and ideas to seeing lisa limit her career to her boyfriend’s domain is very wild.

and you would say “good she’s using his influence for her career” but like, are we not seeing that it feels like he is taking advantage of her popularity to uplift the branch he was recently appointed as a CEO? The fact the French presidency is looking for likeness since it has dropped in popularity with the young people and French is having strikes and protests every other day? the lady macron playing buddy buddy with lisa now. Or that Bernand Arnault is about to overtake Elon Musk as the richest man? Hello?

And people would say is not our business and it isn’t but i don’t see people really questioning this as much and trying to romanticize the fact that man is a “chaebol” is just really crazy considering what his family stands for and how not billionaire is ethical or humane.

mmmmmmh! unfortunately the more things happen the more i agree with this……cause alone these are all innocent and innocuous things and coincidences but together ? idk ……..

though if we were to give him/them the benefit of the doubt, we could say that maybe she’s having all these gigs in france and with french people simply bcs it’s convenient since she’s already there! and maybe she actually supports him/them in using her image and fame for the brand’s gain bcs she loves him and wants to see him succeed, and the family is not controlling her bcs they’re working together (i mean at least that’s how adult relationships are supposed to work) 🤷🏻‍♀️ that being said, and even if we think these things are true, i kind of share your concerns as well bcs atm her image and career are VERY closely tied to lvmh, which isn’t great in general but especially since it’s so early in her career and she should first find her own way as an artist before getting into the corporate and political scene of a foreign country. also, i don’t like that family and i don’t like how they get money, so her involvement (especially to this extent) doesn’t make me enthusiastic……..like you said, there seems to be a power imbalance between them that is pretty worrying, not knowing their relationship personally

however, the thing still is that even though we can voice our concerns and opinions and dislike the situation, we cannot really change it cause she’s not gonna listen to fans to decide what to do with her relationship! if he / his family are actually taking advantage of her, she’s the only one who can choose to leave him and france, there’s nothing we can do 😕😐 though i do think it’s fair and valid for fans to voice concerns like this, especially cause i see so many fans praising him and saying he’s a catch just cause he has money (and nothing else tbh cause we don’t know anything about his personality and he has a face only a mother could love) which i think is so weird and uncomfortable to me ? lisa is a very successful woman, she doesn’t need his money, and it’s weird for fans to say a woman should look for a man to have money……..

#anonymous #sophie ask

[civildisorderstream]

Elon Musk vs the DoD (Spoilers: He Will Lose)

The Senate is investigating Elon's interference in the Ukraine war; interference with US interests by way of kneecapping its ally. Article here, thoughts below it:

So here's the thing. Every corporation, and by extension every CEO thereof, has a relationship with the US government. Lobbying for business favors, ceasing regulation, etc. Elon is certainly no different with the companies he bought. This relationship happens largely in the shadows, and allows for these corporations and CEOs to engage the US population and investors with nonsense swagger and business-speak. Non-committing statements, or world salad to deflect. You've all seen it for sure (most recently the Unity problem). In exchange for letting corporations operate how they do, the US government gets fixed elections by way of corporations backing particular candidates to dominate the public's air time.

Elon failed to notice something though. Not every corporation becomes a contractor with the US government. And why is that?

That business relationship is wildly different, and he doesn't seem to know that. The United States has been in the business of war for decades. My government is extremely not serious, what with Republicans being cultural reactionary bigots and centrists insisting things can't be done when they simply choose not to. But the one facet of US government where everything becomes serious: the war business. The Senate committee that works with the Department of Defense is maybe the most serious part of our government. And I don't say "serious" in the sense of "this is the only thing that results in consequences for us." The clown show stuff we see daily absolutely results in laws that harm us. What I mean is, theatricality and charismatic communication (not that Elon has the latter) do not apply when it comes to contractor business. The DoD is not swayed by that crap.

We are possibly soon coming upon a time where Elon is going to have to sit in front of this committee, and the antics he pulls on social media, or with the press, or even court rooms, is not going to work. The Defense Department wants material results from contractors. Elon's misgivings, or desire to be Putin's lapdog, or the "concern" about "escalating" a war into a war (he's so dumb) do not apply. He became a US contractor. The job is to provide materials and services to the US, which will then use those materials and services as it sees fit. In this case, it saw fit to share those resources with Ukraine (and if I remember right, Starlink was specifically contracted for Ukraine by the US; THAT is the contract). His sentiments mean jack shit; this is real business. The purist form. And real business is something he is historically bad at. He can only get by with the Futurama 80s Guy style of "business."

Because he is a child masquerading as an adult, Elon is prone to throwing public tantrums when consequences or oversight are looming over him. He will predictably lash out at the US government, either through just Starlink or more likely he will try to retaliate using all his businesses. Small shit like being slow to comply on things he's supposed to (like SEC things regarding Twitter). And the problem is, because this fight's starting point is with the war business, the US is not going to take his shit. It will spank him. It is the one time the gross aspect of my government will play to my favor; to see Elon Musk get what's coming to him.

I can hope, at any rate.

His only out is if Republicans on that Senate committee try to give him one, but even they have lines they don't cross. The war business is a line they won't cross. They were the ones who drew the line in the first place.

#starlink #ukraine #elon musk #politics

[animeraider]

The Ramifications - how much trouble is one of the richest people in history actually in?

 I honestly don't think that Elon Musk has really thought all this through.

An awful lot of people at twitter have been let go. Programmers, Human Resources, Security, and especially content moderators. Advertisers have pulled back and he is currently feuding with Apple over the fact that Apple might remove twitter from their app store because it potentially exposes people who would use the app to harm.

It was discovered a few days ago that the Christchurch Massacre found it's way back into twitter in video form. This video was filmed by the killer himself, in the hopes of inspiring others to commit the same kind of violence. Twitter used to take this stuff down within seconds. This time the government of New Zealand had to contact twitter directly to alert them this had happened before the content was taken down.

And this is the part where Elon is in waaaaaaay over his tiny pointed head.

You see, the content moderators at twitter, while far from perfect, have been doing a ton of work. It's not just this massacre but other massacres. Hate Speech. Nazi propaganda. COVID and Election Disinformation. Stalking. Catfishing. Child Porn. All of this has to be searched out and removed. Some of it just in the name of decency, some of it to keep government regulators off their backs.

But that takes staff. Bots alone won't cut it, and that is already readily apparent.

While it isn't true, there is a perception in the Western World that child porn is worse in the Asian Nations than anywhere else. There is a child porn problem there and it's horrific, but the customers tend to be westerners. And as of the moment I'm writing this the staff for twitter that tries to keep this from reaching your feeds is down to one person. In a region of 4.5 Billion people.

What Elon Musk doesn't realize is that some of the countries where this is happening take this very seriously. I would not be surprised to find that he has been indicted on Child Porn charges before the end of the week, because the site he owns is hosting it. In some countries he could be beheaded for this.

I'm shocked that Germany isn't already blocking twitter. It's carrying Nazi propaganda fairly freely now and that's actually illegal in Germany. This is why Volkswagon has pulled their advertising. They could find themselves liable and they want no part of that.

Covid disinformation is now running rampant on twitter. This is something they actually chose to do. And the day they did so over 100,000 people in the US were infected with COVID-19. Nearly 1,000 died. That day.

And then there is the HR fiasco. Musk famously offered people a choice between 3 months severance and signing a contract to work harder. Most took the severance - but many haven't received it. That's because most of their HR department didn't take the deal and there's not enough people left to actually implement the severance. That's actually a violation of California law.

So to sum up only what I've noticed:

1 - Potentially thousands of HR violations 2 - Responsible for disinformation that will lead to people getting sick and dead 3 - Child porn charges 4 - Nazi speech/hate speech violations that are illegal in Germany 5 - Deplatforming by Apple (and I promise you that Google Play will follow if they do) 6 - Terrorism charges. That's what New Zealand has charged people with who have posted video of the Christchurch massacre.

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that this is one whole lot of trouble to be in. I could be very wrong about all of this. It's also very very likely that this is only the tip of the iceberg. There's stuff out there that I never would have thought of - that seems evident. 

And I can't deny that Elon's rich, and rich gets away with a LOT.

Is it enough? I have no clue.

It shouldn't be.

#elon musk #twitter #fuck elon