Apparently I was the only one to read the title that way, but I thought your brothers died (late) in their 40s.

I imagine if such a candidate won, the would forfeit their win by not attending the inauguration and not getting sworn in.

And how does that handle a candidate who is in prison, and how is it different?

Remember, remember, the 5th of November

Yeah, that’s what I said.

That’s 100 free miles a week. Sure, most people will need to charge it anyway, but that’s still 100 free miles a week.

But I don’t think it’s a good idea. It would be more efficient to just put the same solar panels in your roof, where they don’t contribute to the car’s weight, don’t force your to park in sunlight instead of indoor parking or garage, and whose output can be used for charging the car OR for anything else as needed.

No, not nice at all. I’m answering your question on why he doesn’t ban Israeli contributors, not deliberating on the niceness of anyone in particular.

You can’t be pardoned from a lawsuit. This is not a criminal case, just Musk getting sued, which you can’t get out of with a pardon.

His lawyers were there, and so the defense party was there. He wasn’t required to be there, contrary to what the post tries to imply.

No, because he wasn’t required to show up. The defense was required to show up, and it did, as Musk’s lawyers were present. The post is just clickbait trying to make you think he was required to show up.

And it’s a lawsuit, not a criminal charge, so no jail time is in the cards, sadly, no matter how hard he loses.

His lawyers showed up, which fulfills “all parties must be present”, as the defense was present.

It’s clickbait, Musk wasn’t required to show up personally.

That’s just confirmation bias. You assume it’s true because it makes sense given other things you know.

If I make up a fact that you are a technology enthusiast, people can assume it’s true, you are using Lemmy, it makes sense. And it might be true, but it doesn’t change the fact I completely made it up.

He was asked what they are working on now that they released Windows 10. He said they are still working on Windows 10 as it’s the last (latest) release of Windows and still being developed. Yes he could have worded it better.

I completely agree he was unprofessional about it and should have handled it better. It was his choice in how he communicated it, and I think he failed on that point. Having said that, it was not his choice to do it, and I’m sure he will undue it when it’s legally possible. Hopefully using better judgement on his choice of words then.

And even that engineer only said “last” to mean “latest”, which is obvious from context, but why let that get in the way of clickbaity articles.

Because he’s not making any political, moral, or personal decisions, and only follows the law he is forced to.

When the law forces him to sanction Israel, he will do so, and when the law stops forcing him to sanction Russia, he will stop doing so.

Usually uprooting your life and moving to another country implies a job change. At least that’s how I read the comment.

There is an important fact about the Space Shuttle: it doesn’t exist anymore. Even if it was cheaper - which it wasn’t - it wouldn’t have meant much today, because today all other existing options are much more expensive. I’m comparing options we have today, and more importantly comparing to the option SpaceX moved the government off of.

If NASA brings back the space shuttle and it’s cheaper than SpaceX then amazing, let’s go. But they didn’t (because it wouldn’t have been cheaper).

A single launch of a Boeing rocket costs as much as the entire R&D for SpaceX rockets. Launches that cost $5 billion with Boeing, cost tens of millions with SpaceX. I can absolutely agree with you that SpaceX is wasting some of the money given to them. But the amount of taxpayer money spent on launches has been massively reduced by them providing an orders of magnitude cheaper and more reliable option.

There is definitely an argument to be made that they don’t deserve the money, but in the grand scheme of government spending, they have very much reduced it compared to the traditional launch providers.

And their rockets still have capabilities that no other launch provider has achieved yet. Boeing still wastes all their rockets by making them single use, when SpaceX uses the same rocket many times.

The traditional satellite internet is slow and high latency. With the Starlink approach, it is indeed an issue that the satellites need to be continuously replaced, but it does provide a superior service to the user, and combined with SpaceX often launching them “almost free” by piggybacking on free space around their customer’s payloads and not having to pay anyone for launches otherwise, it does come out cheaper than the old satellite internet.

But that’s just the technology. The fact Musk is anywhere near that project makes Starlink a liability.