Because a LOT of people are missing the point:

[graydon@canada.masto.host]

@fazalmajid Well, that, probably, but also "power broker".

The Epstein files function to identify the de facto real power structure. (As he saw it, but considering how long he kept what running, he can't have been too far off.)

(It also identifies the help and the wannabes.)

@gbargoud @cstross @tony

[lightfighter@infosec.exchange]

@cstross But it's great hype for AI bros and TESCREAL cretins.

[dgold@goblin.technology]

@cstross isn't Starship becoming less and less useful as they keep 'iterating' it's development?

That giant cargo capacity keeps on dropping.

[oliver_schafeld@mastodon.online]

Here's a fine blog about what appears to be Musk's latest SpaceX hoax by an actual physics and astronomy professor:

https://www.physicsmatt.com/blog/2025/12/11/the-dumbest-thing-ive-seen-this-week

»The only reason to launch a shitload of GPUs into orbit is to say you did it, because they sure as hell aren’t going to add meaningful capacity to the datacenters on Earth, will cost far more, and would have short usable lifespans. […] So why are a bunch of techbros and their pet journalists hyping this?«

[pa27@mastodon.social]

@cstross Not to mention it probably arrived as a ketamine induced hallucination.
Or maybe grok predicted it.
He possibly even believes it himself, he's so full of it, it's hard to tell.

[oliver_schafeld@mastodon.online]

Hier ein Blog auf Deutsch, das diesen KI-Satelliten Gigaquatsch sachlich zerlegt.

https://www.bernd-leitenberger.de/blog/2026/01/27/musks-ki-rechenzentren-im-orbit/

»Meiner Ansicht nach macht dieser kuriose Vorschlag nur einen Sinn: Kunden für Starlink und Falcons zu beschaffen. 1 Million Satelliten erfordern weit über 100.000 Falcon 9 Starts […] Es muss schlecht um Starlink stehen, wenn es solche Vorschläge von Musk gibt…«

[allpoints@mstdn.social]

@cstross the thing is, the big money knows it's BS or, at least, doesn't care if it's BS. They'll get in early, ride the hype wave and then try to cash out before it all falls apart.

"The stock markets are a way for everyone to participate in owning a company and promote growth." Is nonsense. The markets have become casinos and are disconnected from the economy.

[lazarou@mastodon.social]

@cstross I remember when he claimed his rocket would be on Mars by 2025 and everyone who doesn't know about Space believed him because he's nothing more than a huckster, selling Science Fiction as fact and Journalism not bothering to look beyond the hype.

This man, who was SO keen to visit the Paedo Island....

#ElonMusk #Space #SpaceX #Hustlers #Grifters #ClanOfPaedophiles

[bellegraylane@universeodon.com]

@cstross yup. Tesla is dead, X is basically dead. He needs to create more hype, so here comes the physics breaking con to take more investors money.

[lazarou@mastodon.social]

@elasticsoul @NMBA @cstross actually he said it was 2025. He's late....

[scaletheory@mastodon.social]

@cstross

"laws of physics say "nope""
But there is a way, figured it out. If "elon" wants the secret then it will cost him the trillion the "board of directors" (doge) .. paid him. 300,000,000 would get a tax refund of $3,333.33

[mkoek@mastodon.nl]

@kthy @clintruin @cstross but what does Grokipedia have to say on the subject? Not going to check, but I strongly suspect not much. 🙂

[woozle@toot.cat]

@cstross I'd be interested in finding out if Scott Manley got anything wrong here.

His take, as I understand it, is basically (1) the physics makes it complicated but not non-doable, and (2) can't be profitable now but may well be so within the foreseeable future -- making it likely that whoever gets there first, even before it's profitable, stands to make the usual absurd amounts of money (especially if orbital access is never properly regulated) once it does become cheap enough for it to be profitable.

[oldgeek@masto.yttrx.com]

@lucien @cstross Nope its still BS. It would have been cheaper to put all that money into running more fiber. Especially the last mile in rural areas. But that is not as sexy as Starlink.

[mausmalone@mastodon.social]

@cstross Elon Musk wants datacenters in space because he read Neuromancer once in high school and didn't understand any of it.

[bornach@masto.ai]

@bellegraylane @cstross
Musk merged Xitter with xAI to justify its high valuation to investors as an AI company now.
The same crap with Tesla being rebranded an AI robotaxi and humanoid robot company.

So makes sense to pull the same trick with SpaceX to gullible investors. That it's really an AI company so that SpaceX can afford to bail out Tesla when it buys all those unsold Cybertrucks.

Won't be surprised when Neuralink is touted as an AI company next

[oberono@mastodon.social]

@cstross
I've been thinking about that. I ran across this today, and thought Musk might be able to work it in to his pitch:

http://www.weidai.com/black-holes.txt

[i_give_u_worms@beige.party]

@cstross when his other shit starts to break up it's going to be a pretty busy game of billiards

[cstross@wandering.shop]

@fazalmajid No, because the density of particles in orbit falls off as the inverse cube of their altitude—the volume of space around Earth is vast, and the probability of an impact is a function of the particle density at any given altitude and how long your payload spends there on the way up. Starship could plausibly deliver comsat constellations to altitudes much higher than the overcrowded 200km orbits Starlink is crammed into, where impact probability is far lower.

[bornach@masto.ai]

@oldgeek @lucien @cstross
At 1:14:17 in the latest rant by @TechConnectify
https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM?t=1h14m17s

Imagine if government never built power lines to rural areas. They'd probably be singing praises to orbiting space lasers beaming them energy at huge expense or the delivery robot drones dropping off daily fuel shipments for their generators.