I don’t remove responsibility from the people, but don’t pretend that companies don’t spend piles of cash on marketing when it has absolutely no influence on their customers’ purchasing decisions. Also, don’t pretend that marketing isn’t pandering to appeal and not function.

So what you’re saying is that marketing provides a sober, unbiased presentatiin of the benefits and drawbacks of the products they’re trying to sell, and people make rational, informed decisions? No, like you said, most people behave little better than monkeys, and marketing caters to that, further skewing the norms and pushing people to buy things based on perceived benefits while ignoring the real drawbacks. Next you’ll tell me the prescription opioid epidemic wasn’t exacerbated by the claims that the new opioids were less addictive and pharmaceutical companies incentivizing doctors to prescribe them more than necessary, a lot of words that boil down to ‘marketing’.

You also ignore the role marketing has to play in convincing people that they need those things. Most people don’t need an SUV, let alone a truck, yet I see plenty of people driving these, and even thinking they’re safer than sedans. But they cost more money, which means more profit, and why would it be surprising that people who sell something with a relatively inelastic market want to maximize profit dollars per sale?

Looks like we found someone who believed it was financially necessary for the manufacture of the shuttle to be spread across the country.

There were a lot of skeptics that the Falcon would fly, and be reusable, and it has dramatically reduced cost per kg to orbit.

Also, I’m not sure where you got your Econ degree, and I’m not sure I care. Competitive contracts aren’t the same as subsidies. If the government says they’re going to do something, say build a tunnel, is it a subsidy to the construction company who wins the contract, or is it payment for services rendered? And actual subsidies, such as growing food that can’t be sold on the open market at the price the government is paying, can have benefits to the country, such as national security or funding soft power with other nations. So, is your big problem that the government shouldn’t be supporting space development, or should instead be doing it internally for more tax payer money? Are you against EVs being promoted by the government making the technology more feasible for car companies? If so, why are you pissed at Musk for taking advantage of these subsidies that one could argue help the country and the world, and not at least as pissed at the other car companies for not getting on board and doing what they could to also access those subsidies?

You keep proving that you have passion, but no facts to back it up. I’d be perfectly fine with SpaceX being nationalized, but Americans believe that’s communism. SLS is not only old tech, it’s old tech that isn’t being produced any more. Using existing supplies, they have at best 5 launches, at slightly less than has been spent by SpaceX on the entrie Starship program, for each one. If you want six, well, you have to reopen plants in over half of the states, as well as train staff, etc. Even if the next 5 cost as much as the 5 they can build now, and you’d be a fool to make that bet, it would still cost 10 times what SpaceX has spent so far.

And no, I don’t consider competitive contracts to be subsidizing companies. And the reason SpaceX is doing as well as it is is likely because of people actively working to keep his hands off of it. This may be the only good thing Twitter has accomplished. As for the Dragon capsule ending, I’m pretty sure that technological cat was let out of the bag.

Only if the government keeps subsidizing them to do so by taxing the hell out of us

If Starship cost $3 billion over its lifetime and was entirely funded by US taxes, it would cost, on average $10 per citizen. Note that that is over the lifetime of the project and not by year. Is this the taxing to hell you’re talking about? Not NASA’s $25 billion this year alone (and that’s one of the cheaper budget items)? Do you need to start a GoFundMe to help you out with that?

Now how am I supposed to take you seriously when the easiest statement for you to fact check is so hyperbolically incorrect?

Musk followers don’t seem to be limited to a certain job or class of jobs, so the point is moot. Society won’t run worse because all the shitty people left.

If you want to put an idea out there, permissive licenses are the most likely to promote it. Any individual or organization can use it without restrictions (or restrictions that aren’t unpalatable to most). So if what you’re trying to promote is an idea, a technique, or a standard, this type of license allows it to have the greatest reach.