Do you think that Elon Musk will be remembered in history the same way Adolf Hitler was? And no, I'm not kidding?

[InsecureLivesMatter]

Yes

No

[GreenLanternI0I]

Yes! He is against A. I. taking over the world (on paper and on podcasts) and yet he is the one who is building one of the most powerful A. I's out there. He is against child labor and labor abuse (on paper and on podcasts) and yet poor kids and slaves are the ones who are getting him his minerals for his Tesla batteries. He is against New World Order (on paper and on podcasts) and yet he is the one who has the most amount of privately own satellites that soon if not already would connect all nations under one rule of A. I. implemented by using his entire Starlink system along with other nations most sophisticated A. I's. Ohh and let's not forget, he is for people to keep their jobs and yet he is the one who is about to unleash Army of fully autonomous vehicles and years later robots that would replace 10's if not 100's of millions of jobs. He is One of the most Evil and Dangerous people, because he is portrayed as a human savior and most people bought his satanic lie, in fact most people protecting his lie with their lives, but if you take a closer look, and look at his physical actions, not words, he is actually a human destroyer and he does it with a pure hatred towards us.

[Dargil]

Ahh. A little Word Salad for breakfast. All of which does nothing for your premise in the form of question..

[andreasderjuengere]

I don't think so.

Does anyone remember any relatively successful merchant from the past?

Musk is a marketing stunt. Today most of us heard about him.

Tomorrow his smoke screen will have disappeared.

Leaving behind a tunnel in Vegas, and an empty Mars.

[ShellyB]

I do not know what to make of Elon Musk, he seems maybe a little crazy and I don't like all of his decisions, but, Hitler killed millions of people and started a world war, along with a lot of other horrible things, so I am going to say, prob. not?

[FreyaRed]

Well in this case I think Musk has to do lot of nasty things to deserve to be treated like that. I mean concentration camps, mass genocide, dozens of millions war deaths, systematic war crimes... etc.

[ZackBan]

I'd say he's a few million deaths away from Hitler status so no. He won't.

It's one thing to hate a guy, but Hitler was not just a big meannie he actively destroyed the world by taking lives and using oppression tactics on conquered land.

So no, musk making an offensive joke or building some new toy and making money from it is not the same thing

[Flatmanlewis]

I know your serious but it’s about as ridiculous a leap as I’ve ever heard and makes me think that you probably don’t really understand history very well. Comparing a guy who’s politics you don’t like with a genocidal tyrant is kind of like comparing a house cat with a lion. They may both be the same but they are also very, very, different.

[DextroShade]

Unless Elon somehow manages to have millions of people systematically exterminated I doubt it. It is very telling that woke cultists like yourself think that this guy is equivalent to one of history's worst dictators just because he allows opinions that you disagree with to be posted on his platform.

[Drewtate]

Say what you want he's revolutionised space flight. He's doing exactly what NASA should have been doing and completely reinvented how it's done.

[Soteris]

... No he has not. Everything he has done with SpaceX is just reinventing what NASA had already done previously. There is no actual new breakthroughs here which is a shame since NASA literally made a roadmap for future advances in spaceflight that they intended to pursue but was unable to because their funding and support was cut.

Literally anyone could have just picked up where NASA left off and they would have a real solid plan and headstart for how to continue. For example, we know that we need to abandon traditional rocket engines and either go for the aerospike engine or a rotational detonation engine, both of which are already partially developed by NASA but instead SpaceX just reused the same old tried and tested rocket engine that NASA already made decades before.

[Drewtate]

@Soteris musk isn't a rocket scientist but he is a very clever man and he did make this happen, if not for musk nasa would have doing it the same old more expensive way or paying the Russians or Chinese to do it for us. The man has literally breathed new life into space technology and shown what's possible.

[Soteris]

New life, same as the old life apparently. You know what would have breathed new life into space exploration? Actually properly funding NASA for once. You know, the people who actually invented these things in the first place rather than the people who figured out how to make a profit from the government by reselling their own technology to them.

[Drewtate]

@Soteris I don't disagree. But also if NASA had invested the money into doing it themselves and they would have reaped the finacial rewards which in turn would have funded future projects. NASA was also unwilling to risk the failure of such a radical design, remember the space shuttle looked good in the 80s but was ultimately a major bust which was why ig was scrapped. NASA also believes it would have cost them 4 times what it cost Space x.

[Soteris]

No, that does not make any sense. First of all, NASA is not about making profits, if it was it would be swimming in cash but the world would be a much worse place because of it. Secondly, making rockets and whatnot is not profitable, this only works for SpaceX because the government redirects NASA funding away from NASA and to SpaceX. There is no actual generation of value here aside from moving money around.

Also, the NASA approach is obviously working. While they did not become rich, their technologies and discoveries has helped countless industries inside the USA to prosper, which include the success of SpaceX. SpaceX itself is a NASA success story.

[Soteris]

The Space shuttle was a bust because NASA did not have enough funding, therefore it had to try cooperate with other branches of the government to split the cost but that also meant that the space shuttle had to be able to perform the tasks set out by that group as well. Namely the Air Force which made a bunch of requirements for the space shuttle program that resulted in it being much bigger than NASA itself required as well as a bunch of other stuff. Notably however, if I remember it correctly the Air Force later abandoned the project and left the bill entirely on NASA along with a design that NASA did not like from the beginning.

If NASA just had the funding they needed and could make their own space shuttle without compromising with groups like the Air Force then we would have had a very different space shuttle today.

As for the SpaceX rockets, those are entirely conventional. The space shuttle was a radical design to accommodate the quite frankly ridiculous requirements demanded by the Air Force at the time but NASA were still able to make it work but at a cost which eventually doomed the project. This is perhaps the main strength of NASA, where as an organization like SpaceX sticks to conventional and tested designs to not have to do much work themselves, NASA can pretty much solve any problem you put in front of it as long as you can pay for the premium.

[Drewtate]

@Soteris space x makes money because it charges for putting satellites into space and because of outside investment.
The space shuttle was a unique design to make it easier to launch astronauts and people into space and bring them back safely in a reusable vessel but ultimately failed and the Russian shuttle was superior.
Companies like spaceX, blue origin and virgin galactic were asked to take the finacial risk in developing these new rocket technologies that the US Government & NASA were unwilling to take in case it failed. That's the difference, NASA is unwilling to risk and the US government would have overspent

[Soteris]

Pretty much all the profit, especially early on, that SpaceX has gotten came from government contracts. If NASA would have done the same thing then this would not have generated any profits. Also most of the investments put into SpaceX was to reinvent NASA technologies which obviously NASA already had so would not have needed to invest all that money on exploding rockets until they got it right (again).

Also the space shuttle had a unique design to facilitate the large internal cargo bay required by the air force. It had nothing to do with the re-usability or whatever. Also the Russian shuttle failed even harder, partially because they just basically stole the blueprints and fucked them up and partially because they lacked the proper expertise of NASA.

And again, the rockets used by SpaceX, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic is just old NASA engines that they even got support from NASA to build.

If there is anything to take from this then the private corporations are incredibly risk averse and NASA actually develops new shit.

[Drewtate]

@Soteris NASA oversaw the rockets being built but they are wholly new generation of rockets and leant out the design and production to companies who had designed and built rockets for NASA previously. Basically rocket scientists and engineers in the private sector.
NASA estimated that it would have cost the agency about US$4 billion to develop a rocket like the Falcon 9 booster based upon NASA's traditional contracting processes while a more commercial development approach might have allowed the agency to pay only US$1.7 billion. Basically NASA saved $2 billion and Space X profits by launching Google satellites into space. NASA comes up with new concepts for technology and pays private corporations to develop and build them.
The Russian shuttle was a massive success, they just couldn't fund it and was actually more cost effective to send souz capsules, which was why for a time NASA was paying the Russian space agency to send their astronauts up. The Russian shuttle for instance did away with the giant rocket booster engines as there was actual need for them thus the Russian shuttle was easier to land.
https://youtu.be/Aq7rDQx9jns?si=mns02MBqYfJfrdOw

[Soteris]

No the engines are not new generation. To develop a new generation of engines would require a NASA scaled investment which SpaceX has not done. This is literally the same old technology with a slight advancement in electronics because we have better computers today.

An actual "new generation" of engines would be to develop the aerospike engine or the rotating detonation engine. Both of which would be a massive step forward in space exploration and reduce the cost of each launch. Even better if you combined the two and had a rotating detonation aerospike engine but that is something that I suspect only NASA would have the money and expertise to accomplish if they were ever actually funded.

Also the Falcon 9 is nowhere near up to the NASA standard if they were to develop it themselves. SpaceX as a private company is willing to cut more corners and accept more risks to develop a subpar product where as NASA has to make it as robust and safe as possible.

And no, the Russian space shuttle was not a massive success, they only said so because they wanted to have a PR win over USA. It is pure propaganda. There was also no real purpouse for its construction aside from them stealing NASA blueprints and being afraid the US space shuttle would be used to transport military hardware into space so the USSR wanted their own version to "counter" that. There was simply no need to make such a massive spacecraft unless you had a partnership with the Air Force that ruined everything.

[Drewtate]

@Soteris The Merlin 1D engine was developed by SpaceX between 2011 and 2012, with first flight in 2013. The design goals for the new engine included increased reliability, improved performance, and improved manufacturability. You may as well be comparing a ford model T engine to a Ford Raptor.
Aerospike engine? You mean Lockeed Martin not NASA. Like what NASA are doing now with Space X NASA was doing with Lockeed Martin way back. There are a number of companies developing Aerospike engines, the technology already exists and the German company Polaris are testing on in the next few month. Space X needed to provide a launch system that was simple, cheap and reliable. NASA is unwilling to risk failure or spend money, if Space X fails they get blamed and go bankrupt, even Elon Musk could find himself held legally accountable.
Correction it wasn't the Russian shuttle it was the Soviet shuttle, Ukraine and central Asia etc were part of that. The US also wanted their PR win but the Soviets went their own way with shuttle ie no booster rockets on the shuttle. They quickly realised that the concept of a Space shuttle was completely flawed and needlessly expensive and inefficient

[Soteris]

No. History is full of evil and stupid rich people and I bet you can't name a single one of them. Being rich is not a claim to fame on a historical level.

[Cubus]

History is written by the ones who won, so no. Hitler is remembered as so demonic, because he lost the war. Look how much better Stalin or Mao Zedong are thought to be in the West, than Hitler, even though they were as bad if not worse.

[inhua]

he'd be remembered the same way most historical inventors and innovators were

[Dargil]

What mass murder did Elon commit?
What Fascist ideology does he express?
What countries does he want to conquer?

[strateguy632]

the guy who banned trump from twitter, i didn't check years but that iis how i will remember musk.

[exitseven]

He will be remembered like Thoma Edison or maybe Henry Ford.

[Briscole]

Pluses for Elon:

1. Biden hates him

2. Elon refuses to hire illegals

3. SpaceX, through private donations and under a separate contract with a U. S. foreign aid agency, has been providing Ukrainians and the country's military with Starlink internet service

4. Even though Biden doesn't give a shit about Hawaii, Elon is allowing Hawaiians to communicate after the disastrous fire, via Starlink

5. Elon's Neuralink project could help paralyzed people walk again

6. He figuratively bitch-slapped AOC for selling her Tesla

__________________________

Negatives for Elon:

I'm jealous because he's rich and I'm not.

[exitseven]

@Briscole yeah, I'm jealous too

[Briscole]

I see that he just visited the Southern border. I'm not sure what's up his sleeve, but the border czar hasn't managed to do that. Maybe Biden will sue him for that.

[exitseven]

@Briscole He did this to promote X I think He streamed it live. He promoted his platform and embarrassed the democrats at the same time. A real win win.

[Anonymous]

You have a butthurt because Elon Musk didn't censor the Canadian Parliament leaders on Twitter who applauded that Nazi creature. Go cry in a corner.

[kylee2437]

No Elon will be remembered as the man that jump started advanced recent technology

[Snakeyes7]

It really depend on who the victors are at the time history was written.

I mean the people who think Musk is Hitler incarnate will also say the same thing about Trump so I think their Hitler-o-meter is broken.

[FunkyMonkee]

You MUST be joking!! How many Jews has he tortured and had killed?

[jahaims]

Go to your safe space little buddy. It will be okay.

[Pterodon]

Elon isn’t directly responsible for starting a world war

[Astarlessnightsky]

Not yet. But who know what happens in the future.

[_no_one_]

no gassed juice yet so no

[gorydetails]

yes you are kidding. You are a clown.

[jb2622]

That's just crazy