this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
163 points (98.2% liked)

Enough Musk Spam

2495 readers
1932 users here now

For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.

No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.

Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.

Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.

Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 13 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Reaching escape velocity is expensive. We can be more efficient and still achieve the same result using a minuscule fraction of the propellant and none of the rocket framing.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 day ago

Efficiency. That's his thing. Let's make sure it's efficient.

[–] Jakule17@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A guillotine doesn’t require any fuel

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

FALSE!

The blade is pulled up by human work, muscles are fueled by food.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

I volunteer as tribute

[–] Vandals_handle@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

A trebuchet will achieve the same result and require none of the rocket framing.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I mean we're already sending rockets up there. I'm sure we can afford to dump him out on the way.

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

MelodiousFunk does have a point. Shooting him is cheaper.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 4 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Yeah, but that's not ironic enough for me.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Just hogtie him and leave him on the lauch pad. We get rid of a problem, and the problem is turned into mostly it's component atoms. Give giving the circle of life a little help!

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Trebuchet? Cheap? ✅. Easily assembled and transported? ✅. Low tech not needed any rare earth materials? ✅. Sufficient to launch him at least 150 m? ✅. Low survivability rate for potential additional yeeting? ✅.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago

Hmm, I think we shouldn't rule out other simple machines with wooden frames and French names just yet.

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago

To be clear, I am not advocating for shooting Musk. I am saying we can ignite a fraction of the rocket fuel without any of the containment vessels or expensive infrastructure. While there will be no liftoff, it would certainly be uplifting.