Contrary to popular belief, plenty of long-term profitable businesses have no moat. It's just that if you use Warren Buffett's investment strategy and want to buy stocks to keep for decades, companies with moats are the surest way of doing that.
It's the same tech but after Musk took flack for making a decision on Ukraine's military use, they split off a portion for the US government to control.
Anonymous source can say anything and telegraph can fully make it up also. And it also doesn't matter if Musk suggested it.
The fact is Starshield is controlled by US Govt and they decide what happens with it. Not Musk.
Starlink is controlled by SpaceX, Musk decides what happens with it. It is not allowed to use Starlink for most military purposes. Nothing changed now.
Complaints about anonymous sources might be legitimate when there are legitimate protections for whistleblowers, but an autocratic regime like the US' current government does not deserve any benefit of the doubt - they literally keep openly threatening dissenters and whistleblowers!
Until the rule of law has been re-established and participants have been prosecuted, the standard you're holding sources to is unreasonable.
Before the execution livestream was called off, Trump said that people who leak to the press should be shot. It doesn't take a big leap to see where this is going and what the stakes are.
Say a truth and mix it with some lies. Good job calling democratic government as autocratic. Remember it when your democratic govt is called communist.
This whole thread started with uncharitable assumption saying Musk did it. The fact is Starshield is govt controlled and spacex/musk is not responsible for any change like this.
I object today's abuses and treatment of snowden assange etc too. That doesn't mean I have to have TDS/EDS and uncharitable assumption for people I don't like and charitable for the ones I like.
The Starshield portion of Starlink is already controlled by the government. It was Starshield that restricted access to Ukraine, and the decision reportedly came from the White House.
OP's article of course is about spectrum allocation in the US and potential trade retaliation, which isn't all that related to Musk's control of Starlink.
Current reporting is that Musk approached the White House with the idea of slowing down Starshield.
And the situation here is that Musk's instability is causing Europe to want to not depend on Starlink, and by extension not depend on the US. So now we're using other organs of the state to essentially coerce them into using a system that is de facto controlled by an unstable foreigner, but is part of the US defense apparatus.
I think "slowed down" is a strange description of what happened, which is that it was cut off above a certain speed limit. As in a terminal physically traveling faster than (IIRC) 100 miles per hour would shut off.
Perhaps also worth noting that Starlink is used only for defensive purposes, specifically against "Shahed" drones, which have top speeds of 340 km/h (210 mph). Restricting the speed is effectively helping Putin/Russia murder civilians.
What? I genuinely don't understand your theory. Can you re-state it?
It seems like you're saying the reporting "Elon Musk approaches White House with proposal to add travel speed limit to Starshield in Ukraine, which severely degrades Ukrainian defense" cannot possibly be because Musk and/or the White House want to damage Ukraine?
Wall Street Journal is now reporting that not only did Musk SUGGEST doing this, but he actually did it himself and then spoke with POTUS after the fact.
Which sounds more plausible - that Musk is able to bypass the US government to do whatever he wants with Starshield in Ukraine or that the US administration did this to comply with Trump's wishes to remind the Ukrainians that they are dependent on the US and cannot ignore the wishes of the US President?
Nothing says Musk bypassed the government. The currently reported story is that Musk (presumably seeing Trump was throwing in his lot with Russia), approached the White House with an idea, and the White House agreed to it.
The N1 was cancelled after four explosions, and the fourth Starship launch was non-explody.
But the fourth N1 launch was 10 years after the N1 work was started. Starship began work under a different name in 2012, and by 2022 it had yet to launch at all, let alone reach the non-explody stage.
If you assume all the pre-2016-rebrand work was scrapped, then you can have it beating the N1; otherwise I think my point stands.
For the first few years they were just doing design work, and it's hard to say how much effort they were putting in since their focus back then was Falcon; the first Falcon 9 landing was 2015, and the first Falcon Heavy flight was 2018. For Starship they didn't even decide on stainless steel until 2019.
Comparing apples to apples, this seems to be the appropriate starting point for N1:
> Studied and designed by OKB-1 since 1959, it was the counterpart to the US Saturn V
First launch was 1969. Starship's first launch was in 2023, so it took one extra year from initial concept to launch.
Starting from first launch, N1 did four launches in three years and never succeeded. Starship did 15 launches in three years, had multiple mission successes in which they achieved orbital velocity but had planned a suborbital trajectory, and then orbited on the 15th launch. Their first mission reaching orbital velocity was in 2024.
Also worth mentioning that a lot of the Starship work focuses on full reusability, a quite difficult problem which N1 did not attempt.
Because if each neuron represents a small set of similar concepts instead of several completely different things, it should be easier than expected to look inside the neural net and see what it's really thinking.
It might still be quite difficult since the network is huge, and just because you know what the individual neurons represent doesn't mean you understand the complicated thoughts they're building. But easier than expected is still good news.
reply