I want to take that ride! I noticed that Musk and King were sitting in the second row, and that the front seats were modified, looked very minimal, but there was someone sitting inthe drivers seat during their ride.
Oh, and I just noticed, too, that the Wall Street Urinal article just happened to be on the same day that the Boring Company showed off their first completed tunnel. Classy.
The Boring company doesn't advertise either. Nice company ya got there, be a shame something should HAPPEN to it.
I actually don't know what the error was in the first place, but looking through the WSJ archives the story from Jan 11 2018 includes this: "In the wake of the event, industry and government officials focused on operation of certain hardware, called an adapter, which attached the payload to the rocket and was supposed to release it. The mechanism, according to some of these officials, was supplied by Northrop Grumman instead of SpaceX." Is that what you think needed correction?
No. It was not. WSJ even more recently did a similar hit piece with "unnamed sources" on Elon that was just as bad. It wasn't WSJ but the 60 Minutes piece was edited to make Elon look bad. It's getting ridiculous.
It may have just been the headline and framing of this article: U.S. Spy Satellite Believed Lost After SpaceX Mission Fails A reader not knowing anything about the situation apart from this article could easily assume that SpaceX failed, rather than another company. I think the standard for journalism should be not just whether something is technically, literally true as worded, but whether the impression that the news item leaves in the typical reader’s mind is true. I assume they had good intentions, but 60 Minutes’ editing was frustrating to me. The interviewer asked Elon if he “handpicked” Robyn Denholm. He said, “Yes…handpicked her? I asked for a chair, and the rest of the board was very supportive of that.” 60 Minutes edited it down to just “Yes”. Who actually nominated Robyn? Was it an independent Board committee that excluded Elon? Was it the Board as a whole? Cut down to just “Yes”, it sounds like Elon made the decision unilaterally. With the whole answer, that doesn’t look clear at all. It’s a reminder that we can’t just trust journalistic institutions to do all the work for us. We have to be critical consumers of news.
Yes. The should have corrected it stating, SpaceX was responsible for the overall mission and failed causing billions of dollars loss to American public. And added a foot note that, since SpaceX has been very unreliable, unnamed sources confirm that NASA and the military are considering cancelling all future contracts with SpaceX. Now that would match the headlines.
Ah, I see. Well, you'll be very angry to find out that after the government conducted an investigation into what happened and released its report, the WSJ again blamed Northrop.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or if you think SpaceX was at fault. It does not appear that SpaceX was the general contractor. If anything, it appears that Northrop Grumman was, and they just purchased launch from SpaceX. More info: Investigation into Zuma failure reportedly lays blame on Northrop Grumman – Spaceflight Now
Wow, you really have no idea what actually happened during that mission do you? The government report that was issued about that mission stated that everything SpaceX was contracted to do, it did successfully. The payload did not reach orbit because of a problem with the payload mount and release mechanism that Northrop Grumman was 100% responsible for. SpaceX had nothing to do with it. Your approach to reasoning is much like the WSJ: publish a misleading headline, make factual errors, and never retract them but act like everything that was published was correct. In short, live in a fantasy world of your own making.
Take your angst against Eclectic who thinks WSJ is a paragon of truth and will trust those slimy yellow rag over Musk, who according to him has delivered nothing, whereas he gets WSJ everyday. I was just being sarcastic.
Next time use this and we’ll know. Sarcasm often doesn’t come across accurately between strangers communicating via text on a page.
It's a much ado about nothing article (but with a sensational and misleading title) with no purpose other than to give Elon detractors something to click. Even the same article said the board had decided to give SpaceX some Boring Company shares to compensate for the involvement. No investor, including Peter Thiel whose name was brought up in a weird way, was unhappy of it. As for all those stories of how Elon borrowed money from one company to finance the other these were just common transactions. There is nothing illegal or unethical about them. Can't believe a paper with name Wall Street on it does not understand it.
Sure. That's was just a sarcasm. And they did not bother to write stories of how its owner Murdoch does financial transations between companies he owns.
Cross discipline knowledge transfer is one of the greatest techniques to find out of the box solutions in any industry. The fact that there's stock makes it effectively paid consultation, which everyone does, just like licensing technology with support. If there is a stockholder out there who actually objects, I'll gladly buy his shares if he's so unsatisfied about the project.