Article is pretty clear about it being for US military bases, not offensive operations. Which is a very significant restriction.
Initially it was offered without cost as humanitarian aid. When they expanded on the use of it to include military operations, Elon (rightfully) attached a price tag to it. When they wanted to use outside of the scope of the services they contracted it for Elon said no. Once again another reason infrastructure shouldn't be provided by private citizens.
The Air Force said in its contract justification document, cited in the reports, that the deal involves Starlink supporting US military bases in Europe and Africa with fixed-site and portable satellite internet services.
The contract was for US military bases, not for facilitating offensive strikes. So this was expected au gratis.
I was pretty direct to the point with my comment. Sorry you got touchy about me correcting your spelling.
It's not he was sitting there one and his Elon senses started tingling and he suddenly disabled Starlink without warning. They made a request to broaden the usage area and he inferred what they were trying to do and denies it because of the what he felt was a risk he didn't want to take. The whole Pearl Harbour 2.0 potentially escalating into a nuclear conflict, which is more likely than people are willing to give him credit for.
Whether you agree or disagree with his decision, the issue here isn't which side he choose, it is the fact he was given the capability to make that choice.
Your turn to explain how this situation is similar to a US arms manufacturer choosing which child has their bombs dropped on it.
Just think of how much money was saved by letting Musk provide vital defense infrastructure for free.
Sure, Musk is a piece of shit, but when you don't want to pay for a babysitter and a deranged cannibal offers to watch your child for free, is it really entirely the cannibals fault when he eats your baby despite him totally promising not to.
If you want to take his technology to wage foreign wars then do it.
If you'd rather just rely on a private citizens to provide vital military infrastructure to your allies then deal with the fact that private citizens are prone to such behaviors as acting in their own best interest.
Would removing Putin's ability to effectively wage war through what would have been a modern day pearl harbour potentially up to and including the nuclear retaliation have been a good thing?
Is that the question we should be asking?
Perhaps asking why it is up to a private citizen to provide vital military infrastructure is a better question.
Just understand this headline could have just as easily read: Venture Capitalist averts Global Nuclear War.
It's all about perspective. Your opinion of Elon Musk shouldn't matter because he should have never been in this position to begin with.
I'm not sure where the line is but expecting a private citizen to provide vital defense infrastructure to your foreign allies and continually act in your best interests is clearly past it.
I try not to keep up with social norms but this comment really perplexed me. I tend to subscribe to a very literal definition of the term racist.
This comment is inherently degrading to people and their culture based on the colour of their skin. That's racism full stop, creating racism power rankings with thresholds where comments aren't racist if you are disparaging a collectively agreed upon advantaged race doesn't seem like the proper direction to be going if the goal is to stop racially motivated prejudice.
I think the disconnect was your first reply which made me believe you were playing devil's advocate.
I am also not 100% on board with omitting the parents. I think if there a possibility that the children are being harmed that needs to be something our educators are trained to recognize, no different than if the children were showing up to school malnourished or with unexplained bruises.
It's not the school divisions responsibility to determine which ideological beliefs are best for their children and what secrets should be kept from them. They are legal guardians for a reason and have every right to informed of their children's behavior.
But I do feel the school divisions has a responsibility to let the proper authorities know if any kind of child abuse is occurring, which includes not allowing a child to express the gender identity they are comfortable with.
Article is pretty clear about it being for US military bases, not offensive operations. Which is a very significant restriction.
Initially it was offered without cost as humanitarian aid. When they expanded on the use of it to include military operations, Elon (rightfully) attached a price tag to it. When they wanted to use outside of the scope of the services they contracted it for Elon said no. Once again another reason infrastructure shouldn't be provided by private citizens.