What are some companies that deserve to be boycotted to death?

However, rocket go zoom then land without boom is fun to watch.

Yeah, Musk is a true innovater by having them blow up the concrete launchpad on launch instead...

The government got more money from the patents NASA got then it cost to fund NASA. Privatizing space hurts everyone except the rich asshole who gets the parents.

For fucks sake.

I clearly said I do not like musk. I even went as far as saying I hate him but still that's the first place you went. What the fuck?
- Yeah, but there's also the cognitive dissonance of you saying SpaceX is fun because they don't explode...
  
  But they do explode. Waaaaay more than NASA. Because if a NASA launch goes bad, everyone pays attention. If SpaceX goes bad, people just shrug
  
  So by your own metrics you just said...
  
  NASA is better than SpaceX.
  
  No matter what position I took, it would have disagreed with your comment, because your comment disagrees with itself. Which explains why you think spacex is a positive.
  
  I did not say NASA was better than SpaceX, or the other way around. You are putting words in my mouth. Don't do that.
  
  Here is a link to a comment that discusses exactly what you are saying, and it was posted before your comment. So maybe read first then comment.
  https://kbin.social/m/asklemmy@lemmy.world/t/568410/What-are-some-companies-that-deserve-to-be-boycotted-to#entry-comment-3161709
  
  SpaceX has only had 2 mission failures out of 274 total missions. Since 2017 SpaceX has had a 100% success rate which is a vast majority of its total missions. The recent explosions have been test rockets and expected to blow up, it's how they learn and innovate so quickly. NASA takes billions of dollars and 10+ years to successfully launch a rocket on the first attempt. It's just 2 different approaches to design and innovation.
  
  Nah dude. You don't understand. A guy we don't like is tangibly related to the space program. Fuck all them scientists and engineers. They're all evil. Every. Single. One of them.
  
  You are dumb as fuck if you think SpaceX is not a step function of innovation for mass to orbit launch capabilities.
  
  Here's a chart from last year illustrating this from last year.
  
  https://payloadspace.com/spacex-rules-the-ultimate-roost-in-q1/
  
  You may hate Starlink for what ever reason and Ol Musky, but SpaceX has completely changed the game for launch capabilities and proved rocket reuse works.
  
  It's easy for "SpaceX to explode way more" when NASA has launched a single rocket in the last 13 years. Are you referring to Falcon 9? Starship? Falcon 1?
  
  Personal insults and incorrectly using "big words"...
  
  For some reason the people who defend Musk and his companies love doing that.
  
  Does it work on 4chan? Is that where you all get this from?
  
  Could you please tell me what "big words" they used? I don't see anything outside normal vocabulary.
  
  Hopefully you don't take this as me defending musk in some way.
  
  If the words I used were too big for you then you might need to read up more and get an actual opinion on space launch companies 😂.
- A minute and forty five seconds of hate isn’t gonna cut it today buddy
- Some people can't get over the fact that spaceX is a net positive for humans. Just as Tesla helped push other manufacturers into the world of EVs. They just hate musk to the point that anything he is associated with is bad.
  
  everyone was moving to EV's with or without tesla. if you want to credit anyone go back to the Prius way back in the late 90s. They set the trend, Tesla jumped on that trend.
  
  I can't say that without Tesla EV would be as popular, mainly because at the time when Tesla started was 9 years after the GM EV1 was a failure. I don't think other companies would have seen building EV as a good investment, but who could know?
  
  I'm not defending musk. So tired of that qualifier in this thread.
  
  The prius is not an EV it's a hybrid and nobody thought they were cool. Even tree huggers like me. Tesla made electric cars cool until everyone found out how poorly they were assembled. Then the other manufacturers, seeing that electric cars could be profitable, started tooling their assembly lines. You have your history completely backwards.
  
  The new Prius Prime is cool af in my opinion.
  
  I’m not defending musk. So tired of that qualifier in this thread.
  
  did not say you were.
  
  The prius is not an EV it’s a hybrid and nobody thought they were cool.
  
  it sold incredibly well and proved that there was a market, and yes it was a hybrid as the technology wasn't there. do tesla get kudos for waiting for battery technology now?
  
  You have your history completely backwards.
  
  do you think that the prius came out after a tesla? you need to explain this one.
  
  The new Prius Prime is cool af in my opinion.
  
  it doesn't matter what you find personally cool for what it's worth, then or now.
  
  If I didn't put that qualifier there would be comments talking shit about musk. Read the rest of this comment section and it's clear as day.
  
  The prius did not sell incredibly well. That is completely false. It sold well enough to be profitable but even a standard Corolla sold more year after year. It took a decade or more before any other serious options existed.
  
  The previous paragraph covers your next question. You have your history wrong about how well the Prius sold and how long until EV's became desirable.
  
  A better wording would have been that the new Prius is more desirable than the previous generations. Which reinforces the previous Prius not "being cool."
  
  The prius did not sell incredibly well. That is completely false. It sold well enough to be profitable but even a standard Corolla sold more year after year.
  
  .... uh, yes. the traditional fossil fuel based card sold better than a car selling to a new market. do you want to compare it to, oh i don't know, a ford focus too? are you trying to talk about the hybrid version that came out in the 2010's like 15 years after the prius?
  
  if you want to make the argument that the prius wasn't instrumental in proving the EV market, good luck. you won't find much backing with these talking points.
  
  Because there was nothing else to compare it to at the time. It was the first viable hybrid, we agree on that. The part that I'm having a hard time explaining is that it was not hugely successful and not the motivation for all current EV's. It wasn't even a plug-in hybrid until 2012. That is 9 years AFTER Tesla.
  
  Major manufactures did not attempt EVs until Tesla made a killing on them. Most of them did not even make serious attempts at hybrids until the mid 2000's.
  
  Tesla made rich people like EVs instead of making EVs viable for poor people. Tongue off boot please
  
  EVs are still going to be the wrong answer to the problem. Sure, more efficient than combustable, but still vastly less efficient than good public transport systems, walkable/bikeable cities, etc. If Elon really wanted to save the planet, he'd be building bullet trains.
  
  Oh a hundred percent. Better but not enough
  
  I think Musk is unwilling to ignore incentive structure as a necessary component of his plans.
  
  Tesla did help get the economy moving faster to EVs which is a net positive.
  
  I think the way things turned out, anyone could of had that effect Tesla just happened to be in the right place at the right time though.
  
  I don’t get the crazy musk hate. I mostly ignore him but I love that he created the market for electric cars.
  
  Being an adult means you can look at situations in more complex terms than Elon bad.
  
  I think he’s a man child. I dislike his attitude like the Wikipedia name change. That’s just douche material.
  
  I love that he funded Tesla and now we have a viable electric car market.
  
  but I love that he created the market for electric cars
  
  This is like saying OJ Simpson invented Smuckers Uncrustables so he's not all bad...
  
  Firstly, it's not true.
  
  Secondly, even if it was true, it doesn't amount to enough to celebrate him.
  
  Because putting peanut butter and jelly in a sandwich was already a thing that was popular. It just became worse for the environment and more expensive for consumers by individuall packaging them and requiring them to be frozen.
  
  It is true. Tesla paved the way.
  
  Who said celebrate him. I said I’m glad he did it.
  
  I get you have a binary view of the world. As you mature you may outgrow that but the world is wildly complex.
  
  We wouldn’t have modern electric cars without musk. It took someone willing to take the risk and the big 3 weren’t doing it.
  
  Oh wow...
  
  I mean I was going off of actual facts that you were wrong...
  
  But "it is true" completely changed my mind, without Musk buying a company that already existed, we never would have gotten EVs!
  
  Who had a large scale consumer product before Tesla?
  
  Your claim he didn’t create the market. Who had the market before Tesla? Who else had large scale production before Tesla ?
  
  Who has the largest market share?
  
  Let’s see you prove your claim.
  
  Tesla would have folded if Elon was not part of it. People only started to take notice after the success of Tesla.
  
  Your claim he didn’t create the market
  
  No, you said Tesla created the market...
  
  I said that was false, now your demanding I prove your wrong because you can't prove your opinion is facts.
  
  That's not how this is supposed to work...
If only NASA would innovate the way private space agencies can
- They do...
  
  The only advantage SpaceX has is that if NASA blew up a launchpad, there would be an investigation.
  
  Everyone is used to Musk fucking shit up, and his defenders pretend it's really a success.
  
  Your problem is with the politicians who control NASA funding, not NASA.
  
  Fucking SLS
  
  Hey it’s got the best lawyers alright? It’s an amazing legal team, one of the most powerful in the space industry.
  
  SLS has been a politician mandated thing long before Mr "words I have the best words"
  
  There was a very long investigation, pretty sure it hasn't even concluded since they don't have their license yet for their next test flight.
  
  And why wouldn't it count as a succes? You don't see learning from design flaws as a succes? They clearly learned and iterated on the design
  
  If you read all the comments by givesomefucks you will see that they ignore context and make wild assumptions repeatedly. They are on the hate musk train and not addressing the topic.
  
  You: SpaceX?
  givesomefuck: musk is terrible, musk blow up things, musk stole my girl/boyfriend
  You: Okay, but what I was asking was...
  givesomefucks: musk is the worst human ever, EVER!!!!
  
  Dude or lady is triggered. I get it musk is a douche of the highest order but givessomefucks has let it cause them to miss context and make wild assumptions. Sad really. I wish we could talk about things without whatever bullshit their on. My original question was only answered to the extent of musk is bad.
  
  I just worry there could be GPT-4 instances here that’ve been instructed to make these conversations turn nasty
  
  They don’t.
  
  That’s the difference. NASA wants every launch to be a success.
  
  Space x is willing to blow some shit up to test an idea.
  
  I prefer the nasa method for rockets. Too much risk just blowing shit up in my opinion.
  
  I disagree. I think NASA still innovates but they do it on things like propulsion and earth sciences.
  
  They are slow but it is by design. They want things to be safe. Some say they over engineer things but I think when we are talking about people, that is needed.
  
  When we’re talking about people dying, SpaceX has a better record than NASA
  
  SpaceX created the first successful Full Flow Stage Combustion Cycle Engine, so they're also innovative in the propulsion department.
  
  They literally don’t innovate in the same way. Like you said, if NASA blew up anything there’d be an investigation, making it impossible for them to iterate rapidly, meaning they are unable to innovate in the way private companies can.
- They can't because when they fail the public and then congress wants to cut their budget. NASA can no longer innovate and maintain funding.
  
  I hate that I have to put this qualifier but this is NOT an endorsement of musk.
  
  I don't know why people are downvoting me, I'd love it if NASA could innovate the way private companies can, but they just can't. The way SpaceX is currently developing Starship would not be possible if NASA was doing it. (And no I'm not endorsing Musk I wish the company was owned by someone else)
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

why SpaceX is bad.

For example they "decorated" our night sky with thousands of their satellites. Never asked permission. Astronomers around the globe are pissed because their work & results gets worse. Other people who own satellites are pissed because they don't behave up there.

I have read about the interference with astronomy and am not for it. It didn't occur to me when I asked.

Thanks for answering my question.
I would like to point out that they did ask for permission. Though obviously they didn't ask for permission from every government in the world, nor did they ask the astronomy community.
- Then that doesn't help them.
Providing global Internet is worth it. That said, I'd much rather see it done in a non profit way, and definitely not under the muskrat's control.
- Except the carbon footprint of Starlink is estimated to be 30x greater than terrestrial alternatives.
  
  More than half of all satellites in space are already Starlink at around 5,000, with 12,000 planned in the near future and up to 42,000 as a later expansion.
  
  It's just not sustainable.
  
  I'd love to be able to get a usable terrestrial alternative at my place. Wonky 4G ain't it. 5G is years away, if it ever gets here. Fibre? Perish the thought.
  
  They lost thousands of them and they actually don't know why.
  
  They’re a perfect platform for developing and testing anti-satellite missiles
  
  And is the carbon footprint of internet backbone a big problem?
  
  Do you understand the concept of cost vs benefit?
- This thread is so full of people complaining about ISP monopolies too
- But hold on, isn't it about providing global internet in way X versus way Y? So it's more about the specific way, which is fucking everything up.
  
  Regardless of what it’s “about” what it “is” is internet access available around the globe.
- Providing global Internet is worth it
  
  Who are you to judge that?
  
  On par with the rest of us? Who are you to question who someone else is to weigh in?

Private companies have no business being in space. It sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

Any good publicity for SpaceX is ultimately good publicity for Musk, who's made himself the face of that company too.

Thank you for being the first comment that is not simply "musk bad." I'm not being sarcastic. I seriously appreciate you answering my question.

You make a good point about private companies in space and I agree with it completely.
- Really? We want all of the galaxy other than the surface of Earth to be the sole domain of government activity?
  
  Armies marching on the moon, but never a McDonalds, because that would be horrible?

Really? "Yeah, boycott that jerk!! But not the silly rockets, I like em!"

Uh, no. Just, no.

Destroying environments? Wasting money and fuel on false-promises (the Elon way)? I'm sure there's a tonne of other reasons.

Name an environment destroyed by SpaceX
- Space. They're killing radio astronomy, endangering optical astronomy and threatening everything else in orbit, from telecoms, to earth observation, to the ISS.
  
  They're also spreading rare earth metal everywhere when the satellites burn up and wasting a lot of energy to get them up there when we're facing an energy crisis.
- Just one? I'll do you a few better...
  
  The Falcon 9 rocket put a hole in the ionosphere
  
  Falcon 9 makes use of kerosene, which puts black soot into the atmosphere (if they used solely liquid oxygen or liquid hydrogen the only thing left would be water vapour)
  
  Serious damage at a Texas base (caused craters and debris to scatter around remote cameras)
  
  An explosion on the launch pad during a test caused damage
  
  Boca Chica...
  
  Massive amounts of dust, which contain toxic shit
  
  Destroyed the launchpad (scattering large chunks of concrete into delicate marine and coastal sanctuaries nearby)
  
  Edit: fixed up formatting

Because Musk is a vocal ass and so many on Lemmy can't distinguish the good some of his companies do from the jerkoff owner.

Nestle does evil and is run by evil. Tesla is pushing the automobile industry in the direction it needs to go, but it is majority owned by evil. It's not as simple as a keyboard activist response, so I'm looking forward to the downvotes as I point this out again.

Good luck ever trying to defend Tesla and Space X on Lemmy.

Why would you want to defend those companies? Literally what the fuck good do you think they're doing? How does it outweigh the huge government subsidies they take away from non-garbage companies that could do the same things but without being as awful?
- SpaceX brought internet to the world as well as Ukraine when they needed it
  
  Brought Internet to the world is probably the dumbest most misleading way you could possibly say "provided Internet to a very limited group"
  
  This directly contradicts what you claim. https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/09/14/musk-internet-access-crimea-ukraine/
Tesla is pushing the automobile industry

When they were new and people still believed their promises, they could push the real car makers.

For a while. Long ago.

Nowadays everybody learns how bad these cars really are and how shitty this company acts to their customers after the warranty.
Oh my fucking god. I am not defending shit.

I asked a fucking question and the only answer I got was "musk bad." I posted very clear qualifiers in the original comment and every other comment stating exactly that but somehow a whole bunch of y'all completely ignore that, repeatedly. It's a critical bit of context that completely negates any defenses of any thing.

Then you go on to mention Tesla which was not mentioned in the comment you replied to. So it's obvious you're reading what's written throughout the comments. It also makes obvious that you're only picking out the parts you want. I never, not once, in any way defended Tesla.

I DON'T SUPPORT MUSK. I DID NOT DEFEND SPACEX OR TESLA. How else can I make it clear? What the fuck is going on with people missing the key bit of context?

I asked a question about SpaceX and someone else mentions Tesla. Somehow a bunch of you fuckers read it as I'm defending both SpaceX and Tesla.

Fucking fuck!