this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
168 points (98.3% liked)

Enough Musk Spam

2910 readers
156 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 1 month 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.

[–] Vandals_handle@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

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

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

A guillotine doesn’t require any fuel

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month 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 month ago

I volunteer as tribute

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

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

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

MelodiousFunk does have a point. Shooting him is cheaper.

[–] moody@lemmings.world 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 month ago

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

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month 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!

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month 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.