gian

Stop cutting their funding

Stop electing stupid people and maybe you will get something.

and saying the earth is flat

Stop treating every opinion as worth of discussion even if it is clearly stupid.

and that global warming is a myth.

Start to propose some reasonable solutions and start to pass over the NIMBY syndrome.
(and no, only stopping to use ICE cars or fossil fuel is not a reasonable solution until you propose a sustainable alternative solution)

Wait a minute. It is not that NASA when developed the rocket that culminated with the Apollo V did not even had a rocket exploding, they had their fair share of failures (and some even letal).

But the main difference is that SpaceX and NASA have different approaches: NASA cannot, for various polical reasons, tolerate a rocket exploding during a test, SpaceX can.
I would argue that NASA, in its current incarnation and political situation, would never be able to design, build and manage something like the Falcon 9.

So Musk is not ruining SpaceX with the Starship failures in my opinion, since it is inherent to SpaceX that way to work.

Then that Musk is sometime a little too borderline is true, but I suppose that now he cannot really ruin any of his companies, for whatever you can think about him I really doubt that he is that stupid.

Just for the record, even in Italy the winter tires are required for the season (but we can just have chains on board and we are good).

Double checking and it doesn’t seem like it? Then again I don’t live in Italy. Here in Sweden you’ll face a fine of ~2000kr (roughly 200€) per tire on your vehicle that is out of spec. https://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/en/travelling-motor-vehicles/motor-vehicles/winter-tyres-in-europe.html

Well, I live in Italy and they are required at least in all the northern regions and over a certain altitude in all the others from 15th November to 15th April. Then in some regions these limits are differents as you have seen.

So we in Italy already have a law that consider a different situation for the same rule.

Granted that you need to write a more complex law, but in the end it is nothing impossible.

…and thus it is much simpler to handle these kinds of regulations at a lower level. No need for everyone everywhere to agree, people can have rules that work for them where they live, folks are happier and don’t have to struggle against a system run by bureaucrats so far away they have no idea what reality on the ground is (and they can’t, it’s impossible to account for every scenario centrally). Even on a municipal level certain regulations differ, and that’s completely ok!

So it is not that difficult, just write a directive that say: "All the member states should make laws that require winter tires in every place it is deemed necessary".

I don't really think that making EU more integrated is impossibile

It is not that living in EU remove our right to criticize what we think is not working.

And currently there is a lot that not work in EU, or that can work way better.

Member states are forced to comply with legislation passed by the EU, even if a majority of the citizens of a state do not want to implement it. Technically there are two other options - sufferimg massive fines and punitive actions by the EU, or leaving. I’d rather not have to endure either of those, so instead I complain, loudly, online, to politicians, MPs and MEPs.

Member states are forced to comply with legislation passed by the EU writing their own laws. An EU directive has no effect in Italy unless a law that acknowledges it is enacted. True, we must write a law that implement the directive but it is not an automatism.

It includes “compliance with EU regulations” which in this case is soon going to involve redirecting and tracking visitors to sites such as thepiratebay.

Which are already required, in a form or another, for every EU member, so ?

That depends on what you mean by integrate. There are many clear examples where it makes no sense to enforce homogenous legislation. Europe is a big place, and it makes sense to have different systems in different places.

No, there are no place where it make no sense. Granted that you need to write a more complex law, but in the end it is nothing impossible.

Take tires for instance - in the Scandinavian countries we require winter tires for the season, something which would make no sense in Italy for instance.

Just for the record, even in Italy the winter tires are required for the season (but we can just have chains on board and we are good).

you just defend his right to run spacex on specialK.

Is not the US "the land of the free" ?
Obviously he has the right to run SpaceX, like you have the right to try to build another one.

But obviously you seems to not understand what are the implication of setting this kind of precedent and all the implications that will arise. But that's ok, after all the only important thing is to hate Musk.

I strongly suspect NASA can manage spaceX better than the ketamine kid. Why don’t you give a fuck about those astronauts who have to put their faith in his hardware? why don’t you give a fuck about the kids who are growing up in an age where that drug addled prick is put up as an icon of success?

ROTFL, SpaceX managed 259 launch in 2024, show me how many launch managed NASA, if they are more than maybe you are right, else...

The only reason SpaceX exists is because Boeing and Lockheed managed to compete so badly the only solution was to merge their launch businesses.

To compete even worse

Then make it work.

What people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It’s all well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don’t like, but after we give them that power what’s to stop them from seizing other businesses?

XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.

The problem they don't see is that once a precedent is set, also the other party can do it. What you point out is valid also like "XYZ company refuses to establish a DEI policy because the shareholders voted agains ? Well not the democratic president can seize it".

Let’s not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all these shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn’t made a precedent for changing the rules.

Tipical case of not looking beyond one's nose