Elon Musk. Twitter. Babylon Bee.

[Szdfan]

Boeing's Starliner so far has sent astronauts to space with no way to get them back.. the Starliner should be renamed the Jupiter 2... no need to worry about any "conflict of interest here", as Boeing and NASA had to go begging to Space-X to rescue their astronauts they stranded

Oh, I'm completely aware that the Boeing Starliner is a farce and I'm not defending Boeing here. What matters is the principal -- CEOS should not have oversight or control over their competitor's government contracts. This breeds corruption.

[Ken]

Congress controls government spending, not the President and especially some non-elected presidential appointee. Our Constitution places spending all major spending decisions in the hands of elected officials, not unelected appointees or bureaucrats.

If Musk is concerned about spending he should be running for Congress in Texas. Congress also doesn't impose the same conflict of interest standards on itself that it imposes on executive branch appointees so he could still keep his day job which he couldn't do as an executive branch political appointee.

If he was a political appointee, federal law would prohibit Musk from being involved in every aspect of government in which he has a financial interest and any aspect of government that may affect any of his financial interests. So at a minimum that would include anything to do with NASA, NOAA, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Transportation, the Defense Department, the SEC, the FTC, everything to do with broadband and communications, anything to do with regulation of social media, anything to do with energy policy, etc. etc.

The law is broad. So, for example, Musk is heavily involved in building and promoting electric semi-trucks. That would preclude him from even participating in any official matters or providing advice related to railroads and maritime transport which are both competitors to and connected to the trucking industry. Since a federal decision that regulates railroads, or one that affects maritime shipping has the potential to affect Musk's trucking interests. It would also prohibit him from participating in any federal decisions related to highway policy, rollout and subsidies for national charging infrastructure. And energy policy generally. Since Musk is heavily involved in electrification beyond just cars.

[Szdfan]

Congress controls government spending, not the President and especially some non-elected presidential appointee. Our Constitution places spending all major spending decisions in the hands of elected officials, not unelected appointees or bureaucrats.

If Musk is concerned about spending he should be running for Congress in Texas. Congress also doesn't impose the same conflict of interest standards on itself that it imposes on executive branch appointees so he could still keep his day job which he couldn't do as an executive branch political appointee.

If he was a political appointee, federal law would prohibit Musk from being involved in every aspect of government in which he has a financial interest and any aspect of government that may affect any of his financial interests. So at a minimum that would include anything to do with NASA, NOAA, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Transportation, the Defense Department, the SEC, the FTC, everything to do with broadband and communications, anything to do with regulation of social media, anything to do with energy policy, etc. etc.

The law is broad. So, for example, Musk is heavily involved in building and promoting electric semi-trucks. That would preclude him from even participating in any official matters or providing advice related to railroads and maritime transport which are both competitors to and connected to the trucking industry. Since a federal decision that regulates railroads, or one that affects maritime shipping has the potential to affect Musk's trucking interests. It would also prohibit him from participating in any federal decisions related to highway policy, rollout and subsidies for national charging infrastructure. And energy policy generally. Since Musk is heavily involved in electrification beyond just cars.

How confident are you that the law will hold? One of the things that Trump has promised is that he would replace the career bureaucracy with people who are personally loyal to him and transform the government into a system that primarily benefits him and his interests. What confidence do you have that these laws and norms will continue under a Trump presidency?

[Ken]

Congress controls government spending, not the President and especially some non-elected presidential appointee. Our Constitution places spending all major spending decisions in the hands of elected officials, not unelected appointees or bureaucrats.

If Musk is concerned about spending he should be running for Congress in Texas. Congress also doesn't impose the same conflict of interest standards on itself that it imposes on executive branch appointees so he could still keep his day job which he couldn't do as an executive branch political appointee.

If he was a political appointee, federal law would prohibit Musk from being involved in every aspect of government in which he has a financial interest and any aspect of government that may affect any of his financial interests. So at a minimum that would include anything to do with NASA, NOAA, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Transportation, the Defense Department, the SEC, the FTC, everything to do with broadband and communications, anything to do with regulation of social media, anything to do with energy policy, etc. etc.

The law is broad. So, for example, Musk is heavily involved in building and promoting electric semi-trucks. That would preclude him from even participating in any official matters or providing advice related to railroads and maritime transport which are both competitors to and connected to the trucking industry. Since a federal decision that regulates railroads, or one that affects maritime shipping has the potential to affect Musk's trucking interests. It would also prohibit him from participating in any federal decisions related to highway policy, rollout and subsidies for national charging infrastructure. And energy policy generally. Since Musk is heavily involved in electrification beyond just cars.

How confident are you that the law will hold? One of the things that Trump has promised is that he would replace the career bureaucracy with people who are personally loyal to him and transform the government into a system that primarily benefits him and his interests. What confidence do you have that these laws and norms will continue under a Trump presidency?

Trump can't change any of these laws unilaterally. But he can demand that his DOJ not enforce them. Which is probably the biggest issue here. The politicization of the DOJ.

There are really two issues involved with this discussion: First, can some unelected person be given authority over Federal spending? And the answer is no. That is completely unconstitutional. At they could make recommendations to the president. But even that has little effect since presidents don't control federal budgets either. Congress does. Every president presents a proposed budget to Congress every year and it is treated as DOA or simply aspirational. Both in terms of spending and in terms of cuts.

The second question is whether a president can ignore or violate civil service laws and such when it comes to hiring and firing of employees. The answer again is no, not without Congress re-writing laws. But that is something that would mainly be up to the courts to enforce. Both overturning the decisions to fire people for groundless reasons. And over-ruling decisions made by appointees who were not legally authorized to make those decisions. But the legal system can move glacially and resolution of those sorts of cases would likely take much longer than Trump would even be in power. So in the short term they can pretty much do whatever they want. Those laws were put into place over 100 years ago for very good reason. Essentially to eliminate the corrupt old practices of political patronage and selling of offices to the highest bidder.

[Szdfan]

Congress controls government spending, not the President and especially some non-elected presidential appointee. Our Constitution places spending all major spending decisions in the hands of elected officials, not unelected appointees or bureaucrats.

If Musk is concerned about spending he should be running for Congress in Texas. Congress also doesn't impose the same conflict of interest standards on itself that it imposes on executive branch appointees so he could still keep his day job which he couldn't do as an executive branch political appointee.

If he was a political appointee, federal law would prohibit Musk from being involved in every aspect of government in which he has a financial interest and any aspect of government that may affect any of his financial interests. So at a minimum that would include anything to do with NASA, NOAA, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Transportation, the Defense Department, the SEC, the FTC, everything to do with broadband and communications, anything to do with regulation of social media, anything to do with energy policy, etc. etc.

The law is broad. So, for example, Musk is heavily involved in building and promoting electric semi-trucks. That would preclude him from even participating in any official matters or providing advice related to railroads and maritime transport which are both competitors to and connected to the trucking industry. Since a federal decision that regulates railroads, or one that affects maritime shipping has the potential to affect Musk's trucking interests. It would also prohibit him from participating in any federal decisions related to highway policy, rollout and subsidies for national charging infrastructure. And energy policy generally. Since Musk is heavily involved in electrification beyond just cars.

How confident are you that the law will hold? One of the things that Trump has promised is that he would replace the career bureaucracy with people who are personally loyal to him and transform the government into a system that primarily benefits him and his interests. What confidence do you have that these laws and norms will continue under a Trump presidency?

Trump can't change any of these laws unilaterally. But he can demand that his DOJ not enforce them. Which is probably the biggest issue here. The politicization of the DOJ.

There are really two issues involved with this discussion: First, can some unelected person be given authority over Federal spending? And the answer is no. That is completely unconstitutional. At they could make recommendations to the president. But even that has little effect since presidents don't control federal budgets either. Congress does. Every president presents a proposed budget to Congress every year and it is treated as DOA or simply aspirational. Both in terms of spending and in terms of cuts.

The second question is whether a president can ignore or violate civil service laws and such when it comes to hiring and firing of employees. The answer again is no, not without Congress re-writing laws. But that is something that would mainly be up to the courts to enforce. Both overturning the decisions to fire people for groundless reasons. And over-ruling decisions made by appointees who were not legally authorized to make those decisions. But the legal system can move glacially and resolution of those sorts of cases would likely take much longer than Trump would even be in power. So in the short term they can pretty much do whatever they want. Those laws were put into place over 100 years ago for very good reason. Essentially to eliminate the corrupt old practices of political patronage and selling of offices to the highest bidder.

So in October 2020, the Trump administration initiated Schedule F, which would have stripped civil service employees of most of their protections, making it easier for the president to control the federal bureaucracy and staff it with loyal appointees. It was never fully implemented because Trump lost the election and the Biden administration rescinded it.

Are you saying this executive order would not have survived a court challenge?

[Ken]

How confident are you that the law will hold? One of the things that Trump has promised is that he would replace the career bureaucracy with people who are personally loyal to him and transform the government into a system that primarily benefits him and his interests. What confidence do you have that these laws and norms will continue under a Trump presidency?

Trump can't change any of these laws unilaterally. But he can demand that his DOJ not enforce them. Which is probably the biggest issue here. The politicization of the DOJ.

There are really two issues involved with this discussion: First, can some unelected person be given authority over Federal spending? And the answer is no. That is completely unconstitutional. At they could make recommendations to the president. But even that has little effect since presidents don't control federal budgets either. Congress does. Every president presents a proposed budget to Congress every year and it is treated as DOA or simply aspirational. Both in terms of spending and in terms of cuts.

The second question is whether a president can ignore or violate civil service laws and such when it comes to hiring and firing of employees. The answer again is no, not without Congress re-writing laws. But that is something that would mainly be up to the courts to enforce. Both overturning the decisions to fire people for groundless reasons. And over-ruling decisions made by appointees who were not legally authorized to make those decisions. But the legal system can move glacially and resolution of those sorts of cases would likely take much longer than Trump would even be in power. So in the short term they can pretty much do whatever they want. Those laws were put into place over 100 years ago for very good reason. Essentially to eliminate the corrupt old practices of political patronage and selling of offices to the highest bidder.

So in October 2020, the Trump administration initiated Schedule F, which would have stripped civil service employees of most of their protections, making it easier for the president to control the federal bureaucracy and staff it with loyal appointees. It was never fully implemented because Trump lost the election and the Biden administration rescinded it.

Are you saying this executive order would not have survived a court challenge?

I have no idea. It was never challenged in court because it never took effect.

[Szdfan]

I have no idea. It was never challenged in court because it never took effect.

Well, we might find out.

[Robert]

Got to respect that.

[Robert]

https://www.pcmag.com/news/cellular-sta ... hurricanes

SpaceX’s cellular Starlink service delivered "hundreds of thousands" of text messages to help hurricane victims, according to T-Mobile's CEO.

"During the hurricanes, we were able to test with a temporary authorization and saw hundreds of thousands of successfully completed text messages to people that otherwise wouldn’t have seen them,” Mike Sievert said in an earnings call on Wednesday.

Sievert made the comment while discussing Starlink's direct-to-cell satellite service. Earlier this month, SpaceX received temporary clearance from the FCC to use its orbiting satellites to beam emergency alerts to residents of areas hit by Hurricanes Helene and Milton. In addition, SpaceX received emergency authority to offer satellite-based SMS text messaging to T-Mobile customers in the hurricane-affected zones.

Seems Elon's statements about direct to cell is happening. I remember some who said it would not.

Sievert didn't go into details. But his comment offers a glimpse at how the cellular Starlink technology could help T-Mobile and other carriers fill a gap in their coverage, especially when a disaster strikes. T-Mobile is partnering with SpaceX on the upcoming service, which is scheduled to launch in late 2024 or early 2025 as a beta.

Initially, the cellular Starlink service will be restricted to text messaging. But SpaceX plans on expanding its capabilities to support voice calls and internet data, with the company’s earlier tests showing it can power download rates at around 14Mbps.

However, SpaceX still needs to secure full approval from the FCC before it can commercially operate the cellular Starlink service in the US. The other issue is that SpaceX is urging the commission to loosen regulations on radio emissions for the cellular Starlink satellites, or the technology risks losing the ability to power real-time calling, the company says.

[Bootstrap]

https://www.pcmag.com/news/cellular-sta ... hurricanes

SpaceX’s cellular Starlink service delivered "hundreds of thousands" of text messages to help hurricane victims, according to T-Mobile's CEO.

"During the hurricanes, we were able to test with a temporary authorization and saw hundreds of thousands of successfully completed text messages to people that otherwise wouldn’t have seen them,” Mike Sievert said in an earnings call on Wednesday.

Sievert made the comment while discussing Starlink's direct-to-cell satellite service. Earlier this month, SpaceX received temporary clearance from the FCC to use its orbiting satellites to beam emergency alerts to residents of areas hit by Hurricanes Helene and Milton. In addition, SpaceX received emergency authority to offer satellite-based SMS text messaging to T-Mobile customers in the hurricane-affected zones.

Seems Elon's statements about direct to cell is happening.

Do you think all of Musk's accomplishments would have happened if he had been deported as an illegal alien? Should he have been deported? Why or why not?

Elon Musk and his brother Kimbal were speaking to a crowd of business leaders in 2013 about creating their first company when the conversation seemed to go off script. Originally from South Africa, Kimbal said the brothers lacked lawful immigration status when they began the business in the U.S.

“In fact, when they did fund us, they realized that we were illegal immigrants,” Kimbal said.