Elon does not read this forum, apparently

M

MountainDude

Line Up and Wait
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
942
Display Name
Display name:
MountainDude
People on this forum have repeatedly said it's futile to sue the FAA, but Elon has not read those posts:
www.flyingmag.com

FAA Proposes SpaceX Fine, Musk Vows Lawsuit

The FAA announced Tuesday it has proposed fining SpaceX $633,000 for allegedly failing to adhere to licensing requirements.
www.flyingmag.com www.flyingmag.com
 
MountainDude said:
People on this forum have repeatedly said it's futile to sue the FAA, but Elon has not read those posts:
www.flyingmag.com

FAA Proposes SpaceX Fine, Musk Vows Lawsuit

The FAA announced Tuesday it has proposed fining SpaceX $633,000 for allegedly failing to adhere to licensing requirements.
www.flyingmag.com www.flyingmag.com
Click to expand...
If you run space rockets for half of the world , slim as it may be, there is a chance you may be able to get somewhere with suing the FAA - don’t get your hopes too high though … military , FAA , whatever it is - they all are just glorified, and just as inefficient, DMV employees.
 
Or... he's read our opinions that it's futile, and even agrees... but sues for recreational value.

Paul
 
#1: Saying you're going to file suit does not equal filing suit. Elon says lots of things are going to happen that don't ever happen.

#2: Filing suit does not equal completing suit. If he ever files, we'll see if it gets tossed out or not.
 
Warmi said:
military, FAA , whatever it is - they all are just glorified, and just as inefficient, DMV employees.
Click to expand...
Having served my country as a 24-year veteran plus what I’ve seen of the FAA in a variety of situations, I respectfully disagree with this blanket statement. Yeah, some among those groups fit that description but there are plenty, plenty of glorified and inefficient employees in industry as well; they just don’t get scrutinized like civil servants.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
..., plenty of glorified and inefficient employees in industry as well; they just don’t get scrutinized like civil servants.
Click to expand...

well, industry can probably more easily fire some of the glorified and inefficient (or they get MBAs...)
 
frfly172 said:
I hope that the person who posted a derogatory comment on the military.i would hope that they served. And are speaking from experience.
Click to expand...
Interesting that making a comment (good or bad) about the military would require having served. They exist largely to protect Constitutional rights . . . like freedom of speech. Not sure why not having served should preclude anyone from having anyone from having an opinion about it.
 
frfly172 said:
I hope that the person who posted a derogatory comment on the military.i would hope that they served. And are speaking from experience.
Click to expand...
I did not but my son is a captain in USMC so I hear plenty enough to form an opinion - nobody questions people courage under fire but the bureaucracy behind it is just as bad ( and often worse in terms of how much waste they can get away with ) as any other government agency.
 
Silvaire said:
It's the same argument that unions shelter the lackluster as if management had no lackluster, only the best and the brightest. Yea right... lol
Click to expand...
Unions exist to protect people with relatively easily replaceable skills by organizing them into large groups that, unlike individuals, are not so easily replaceable ( as long as said groups act in unison ) - it is a form of institutional blackmail ( actually a labor equivalent of business monopolies ) that , while noble in its original design, often ends up promoting mediocrity by equally protecting and sheltering lackluster as well as exceptional workers - so I am not sure what is your point ….
 
Also, having served, I chuckle when I see people of a particular, umm, leaning complain about civil servants and especially military and how under-performing they consider them to be when, in my experience, those under-achievers are of the same leaning.
 
AKiss20 said:
So I assume you hold zero opinions about organizations of which you’ve never been a member correct?
Click to expand...
Of course not...but I don't try to insert derogatory comments regarding members of those organizations into conversations where they are not relevant.

Nauga,
and POV Warriors
 
nauga said:
Of course not...but I don't try to insert derogatory comments regarding members of those organizations into conversations where they are not relevant.

Nauga,
and POV Warriors
Click to expand...
Calling an organization “inefficient” constitutes making unacceptable derogatory comments about its members in your mind? Sensitive are we?

Where was this outrage for MBAs who also got cracked at?
 
AKiss20 said:
Where was this outrage for MBAs who also got cracked at?
Click to expand...
To my point, it's hopefully in a thread where someone was cracking at MBAs, not in one about a government contractor threatening a lawsuit against the government.

Nauga,
who didn't come here to talk about bananas
 
Warmi said:
Unions exist to protect people with relatively easily replaceable skills by organizing them into large groups that, unlike individuals, are not so easily replaceable ( as long as said groups act in unison ) - it is a form of institutional blackmail ( actually a labor equivalent of business monopolies ) that , while noble in its original design, often ends up promoting mediocrity by equally protecting and sheltering lackluster as well as exceptional workers - so I am not sure what is your point ….
Click to expand...
It really depends on the situation. I understand your comment, and I've seen enough union BS to understand your point-of-view. OTOH, I'll note Boeing- it is interesting that >90% of the affected employees chose to strike. My opinion is that they probably should have given the new CEO a chance, but perhaps they didn't have that opportunity. There's been a lot of shoddy work at Boeing suggesting that management was cheap to them as well, helping to create the culture they now have. I'll also note many unions don't do much more than take dues so a handful of union officers get a lot of money for very little. I understand your position but it's not right to tar all unions the same way, anymore as all corporations are the same.
 
Warmi said:
I did not but my son is a captain in USMC so I hear plenty enough to form an opinion - nobody questions people courage under fire but the bureaucracy behind it is just as bad ( and often worse in terms of how much waste they can get away with ) as any other government agency.
Click to expand...
Most large corporations are also burdened with the same inefficiencies and waste as the military. You can’t serve in an organization (Army) with over 400,000 members and not see your share of red tape. Still doesn’t take away from its overall effectiveness.
 
Anybody who has been in the military knows that it is a complete cluster (you know what) in regards to efficiency. It has a single purpose and that is to annihilate any enemy that threatens us regardless of cost which, by nature of it's core mission, is messy.
 
Silvaire said:
Anybody who has been in the military knows that it is a complete cluster (you know what) in regards to efficiency. It has a single purpose and that is to annihilate any enemy that threatens us regardless of cost which, by nature of it's core mission, is messy.
Click to expand...
As an active servicemember, I will go so far as to say that efficiency and resiliency are usually opposing forces, and the drive to make our military efficient (things such as just-in-time logistics, minimum manning, and increasing use of contractors/civilian sources) have caused significant issues for readiness that are going to bite us hard if things go kinetic in a big way. The military is not supposed to be efficient, it's supposed to be resilient and lethal. If we lose a tank or an aircraft, we're supposed to have a spare. We need extra people to replace those who get killed or injured. Efficiency almost invariably results in the risk of single-point-of-failure throughout the structure. The bureaucracy makes me crazy too some days, but I'll take that over a penny-wise, pound-foolish efficiency drive.
 
AvNavCom said:
As an active servicemember, I will go so far as to say that efficiency and resiliency are usually opposing forces, and the drive to make our military efficient (things such as just-in-time logistics, minimum manning, and increasing use of contractors/civilian sources) have caused significant issues for readiness that are going to bite us hard if things go kinetic in a big way. The military is not supposed to be efficient, it's supposed to be resilient and lethal. If we lose a tank or an aircraft, we're supposed to have a spare. We need extra people to replace those who get killed or injured. Efficiency almost invariably results in the risk of single-point-of-failure throughout the structure. The bureaucracy makes me crazy too some days, but I'll take that over a penny-wise, pound-foolish efficiency drive.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but:
- efficiency does not have to compromise efficacy. It can actually boost it.
- bureaucracy, by definition, simply adds an unnecessary time and cost to an activity, without adding any value.
 
You can’t paint the military with a broad brush of inefficiency. In Big Army, we were pretty inefficient but that’s not the total package. SOCOM is pretty darn efficient and lethal. Same as specialized units in other services. Any PMC that believes they can do as good as spec ops really isn’t bringing enough to to the table.

Now the DMV? I’d say they’re inefficient across the board. I’d also say like some other government organizations, dysfunctional as well.
 
AvNavCom said:
As an active servicemember, I will go so far as to say that efficiency and resiliency are usually opposing forces, and the drive to make our military efficient (things such as just-in-time logistics, minimum manning, and increasing use of contractors/civilian sources) have caused significant issues for readiness that are going to bite us hard if things go kinetic in a big way. The military is not supposed to be efficient, it's supposed to be resilient and lethal. If we lose a tank or an aircraft, we're supposed to have a spare. We need extra people to replace those who get killed or injured. Efficiency almost invariably results in the risk of single-point-of-failure throughout the structure. The bureaucracy makes me crazy too some days, but I'll take that over a penny-wise, pound-foolish efficiency drive.
Click to expand...
AI will solve that problem ( efficiency on the battle field and in a few decades human soldiers will be mostly obsolete ) - where it probably wont help is in the supply/purchase chain - bureaucrats and people benefitting from their bureaucratic inertia will make sure that whatever AI they use, it will allow for the status quo to continue - after all, they will be the ones specing out their AI overlords. :)
 
The group of men I served with were the smartest, most intelligent, hard working, ethical, and honest individuals I ever worked with, before or after. I am humbled to have been a part of that group.

YSMV (your service may vary)
 
Warmi said:
bureaucrats and people benefitting from their bureaucratic inertia will make sure that whatever AI they use, it will allow for the status quo to continue - after all, they will be the ones specing out their AI overlords. :)
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

I'm sure if ArmySupplyChainAI recommends making parts for the Abraham's tank in 1-2 places rather than all 50 states and like 100 voting districts, it'll be promptly "fine tuned" til it spits out an appropriately wasteful answer.
 
The FAA is responsible for the US air transportation system. Major US carriers have not had a fatal air crash in over 20 years. That seems pretty efficient to me. Almost a miracle, really.
 
Bill said:
The group of men I served with were the smartest, most intelligent, hard working, ethical, and honest individuals I ever worked with, before or after. I am humbled to have been a part of that group.

YSMV (your service may vary)
Click to expand...
Would add a bond of trust to those attributes. With few exceptions, those with whom you have faced death become your friends for life.
 
Ed Haywood said:
It does not preclude having or expressing an opinion. It DOES lower the credibility of that opinion, since it is based on hearsay, not first hand experience.
Click to expand...
Ah, the good old "appeal to authority" fallacy. Never mind the volumes of first-hand accounts from service-men and women who describe the mountains of waste and inefficiency. Legislative bills containing $120M provisions for tanks which the Army says it didn't need or want. Accounts of government contractors absolutely fleecing the gov't to provide tents and basic services. You must have seen it with your own eyes or it didn't happen though . . .
 
Actually, one does not need to have served in order to have witnessed poor financial practices (don't forget that civilians work in SPOs as well as support contractors) - been there, done that, have the bloody t-shirt... :-(
 
I think some are conflating inefficiency with its synonym incompetence.
 
If inefficiency leads to having the tools, troops and leadership to win a war (if the politicians let you), I'm all for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top