Ukraine can only use Starshield because of Musk; if he hadn't built the network, they wouldn't be doing nearly as well as they are. As a SpaceX shareholder, I'd rather not have the Starlink network be a legitimate military target at all, and Ukraine can destroy energy infrastructure without US help.

Yes, I believe he's a misunderstood engineering type who wants to improve the world, plus it's a political advantage to make a large contribution to the new Trump Accounts.

1 share isn't hard to sell, and it won't necessarily be 1 share in the future; Tesla has split twice, 3 for 1 and 5 for 1, so 1 share of that for 7 years ago would now be 15 shares.

Trump Accounts are retirement plans for kids, and Elon could donate directly to those.

Thank you. The guy is literally proposing to give away $10 billion, to children, and people have a problem with that.

He now owns ~4.8B shares of SpaceX (with more options to come), so 73M is ~1.5% of that; he could easily give away his own shares.

SpaceX is incorporated in Texas.

2 things can be true at the same time; people can be pawns to the pedophilic elites, fighting to support illegal immigration and destroy the country, AND there can be a fascistic marriage of government and industry to surveil us.

I, too, believe we need to end the Fed.

Trump isn't doing this on his own; there are valid criticisms of these memos. Here's a quick writeup (thanks Claude):

Analysis of OMB Memoranda M-22-18 and M-23-16

Who's criticizing these memoranda?

Industry and vendor concerns (from the implementation period):

Suppliers and vendors faced variations in conformity assessment expectations from agency to agency, with each agency potentially taking different approaches to the self-attestations. The attestation requirements had to be obtained for every major version change, creating ongoing compliance burdens.

Officers of companies signing the attestation form faced potential criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for willfully providing false or misleading information, which created significant legal exposure for vendors.

The Trump administration (January 2026):

OMB's January 2026 memorandum noted that M-22-18 imposed unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance over genuine security investments and diverted agencies from developing tailored assurance requirements. This was the stated reason for rescinding the policy.

Implementation examples:

Successes:

USDA successfully implemented phishing-resistant authentication using FIDO capabilities for seasonal workers and lab employees who couldn't use PIV cards, leveraging their centralized ICAM architecture and "always be piloting" philosophy.

Challenges:

Timeline extensions were needed - M-23-16 in June 2023 extended deadlines because the final attestation form wasn't ready, and OMB representatives indicated they needed more time to standardize SBOM processes.

Hardware security keys cost $20-$50 per user plus licensing fees, creating budget challenges especially for small and medium-sized businesses, along with logistical challenges distributing keys to remote workforces.

Current status:

Important: Both M-22-18 and M-23-16 were rescinded in January 2026 through memorandum M-26-05, which adopted a risk-based approach instead of the universal attestation requirement. Agencies can now choose whether to use CISA's Common Form or develop their own approaches.

Conclusion:

These were technically sound policies with real security merit, but execution had legitimate friction - vendor burden, legal liability concerns, timeline slippage, and agency-by-agency variation. The rescission suggests the new administration viewed the compliance costs as outweighing benefits, though software supply chain security remains a stated priority.

Interesting point about the other countries. I don't know what happened with them, but that doesn't say the US wasn't held back because their regulations were all written for the tech of the earliest plants.

We know what to do; the tech we're revisiting now is from the 70s.

It's too bad so little progress has been made on nuclear energy plants in the last 50 years. We could have had cheap, clean energy, which would have been great to prevent global warming, especially as other countries industrialize. The protestors who were scared of the word nuclear got the US government to add so many regulations, and we're living in the future they created.

My thoughts on Hillary's emails? She's a corrupt piece of shit. Her campaign did Bernie dirty. We would have been at war with Iran in 2017 if she won, and now the Iran issue might be resolving on its own.

The point is that no one runs it, it has set rules, so people can't fuck with it (that's the point of Bitcoin, at least), but keep defending a system that steals from the poor and gives to the rich with endless inflation.

1. The market sets the price.
2. Government can't inflate away the value.

Unless we go back to some backed currency, like a gold standard, the government will just spend and inflate away the value of its money, impoverishing the masses; we need an alternative.

That's not how it works; these companies do not get paid by the government, they offer the free service for the chance to market and upsell.