Connect with us

Business

SpaceX Ignored FAA Regulations by Launching a Spacecraft That Was Denied a Safety Waiver

Published

on

  • The Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday that it had previously denied SpaceX a safety waiver for a December flight the company conducted anyway.
  • That flight later crashed, though SpaceX still called it a success for the data it provided.
  • The FAA later required SpaceX to investigate the incident before conducting future launches. That investigation was completed Monday night, allowing SpaceX to launch another spacecraft Tuesday.
  • Though the investigation is over, many remain upset that SpaceX seemingly violated FAA regulations without any real repercussions, noting that the unapproved launch was reckless and could have posed a serious risk to public safety.

FAA Denies Safety Waiver

The Federal Aviation Administration revealed Tuesday that SpaceX conducted a December test flight after the agency denied it a safety waiver granting it permission to do so. 

According to the FAA, SpaceX originally sought the waiver to be able to launch its SN8 Starship prototype spacecraft while “exceed[ing] the maximum public risk allowed by federal safety regulations.”

Both aerospace and industry officials have condemned SpaceX’s decision to carry out the launch, despite it being denied the clearance. In fact, many have described it as reckless and noted that it could have posed a serious risk to public safety. 

While CEO Elon Musk and others with SpaceX called the launch a success for the data it provided, landing proved to be a challenge and the spacecraft later crashed back into the Earth. 

Still, this wasn’t entirely unexpected. In a statement, the FAA said it denied the safety waiver because SpaceX failed to “demonstrat[e] that the public risk from far field blast overpressure was within the regulatory criteria.” Essentially, that means SpaceX couldn’t prove that the chance of an explosion harming the public was within legal limits.

Following the launch, the FAA directed SpaceX to investigate the incident and suspend all activity that could compromise public safety near its launch site in South Texas. 

Another SpaceX Starship Crashes 

Also on Tuesday, SpaceX successfully launched another of its Starship prototype spacecraft, SN9. Like in December, this newest prototype later crashed, slamming into the landing pad to create an explosive fireball. 

Nonetheless, SpaceX officials again described the mission as a success for the data it provided. 

The only reason the FAA granted approval for Tuesday’s test was because the investigation into December’s test concluded late Monday. There, the FAA said “corrective actions implemented by SpaceX enhanced public safety. Those actions were incorporated into today’s SN9 launch. We anticipate taking no further enforcement action on SN8 matter.” 

Leading up to that approval, Musk was critical of the FAA, arguing that the agency’s space division has a “fundamentally broken regulatory structure.”

“Their rules are meant for a handful of expendable launches per year from a few government facilities,” he added. “Under those rules, humanity will never get to Mars.” 

Musk is a frequent critic of government regulation. In past incidents, he criticized the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as sued for the ability to reopen his California-based Telsa production facilities amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Critics Denounce Musk’s Comments

In an exchange with The Washington Post, an anonymous source familiar with the situation said,  “If the FAA approved a launch that ended with people getting hurt ‘then we’re in a situation where we’re second-guessed — did you do everything you could? And were you influenced by Elon and his fan club?’”

On Twitter, former FAA official Jared Zambrano-Stout said, “I am trying to wrap my mind around this right now… I am just in complete shock that a licensee has violated a launch license and there seems to be no repercussions.”

“If a licensee violates the terms of their launch license, they did so knowing that an uninvolved member of the public could have been hurt or killed. That is not exaggeration. They took a calculated risk with your life and property.”

See what others are saying: (CNET) (The Washington Post) (CNN)

Business

Adidas Financial Woes Continue, Company on Track for First Annual Loss in Decades

Published

on

Adidas has labeled 2023 a “transition year” for the company. 


Yeezy Surplus 

Adidas’ split with musician Kanye West has left the company with financial problems due to surplus Yeezy products, putting the sportswear giant in the position to potentially suffer its first annual loss in over 30 years. 

Adidas dropped West last year after he made a series of antisemitic remarks on social media and other broadcasts. His Yeezy line was a staple for Adidas, and the surplus product is due, in part, to the brand’s own decision to continue production during the split.

According to CEO Bjorn Gulden, Adidas continued production of only the items already in the pipeline to prevent thousands of people from losing their jobs. However, that has led to the unfortunate overabundance of Yeezy sneakers and clothes. 

On Wednesday, Gulden said that selling the shoes and donating the proceeds makes more sense than giving them away due to the Yeezy resale market — which has reportedly shot up 30% since October.

“If we sell it, I promise that the people who have been hurt by this will also get something good out of this,” Gulden said in a statement to the press. 

However, Gulden also said that West is entitled to a portion of the proceeds of the sale of Yeezys per his royalty agreement.

The Numbers 

Adidas announced in February that, following its divergence from West, it is facing potential sales losses totaling around $1.2 billion and profit losses of around $500 million. 

If it decides to not sell any more Yeezy products, Adidas is facing a projected annual loss of over $700 million.

Outside of West, Adidas has taken several heavy profit blows recently. Its operating profit reportedly fell by 66% last year, a total of more than $700 million. It also pulled out of Russia after the country’s invasion of Ukraine last year, which cost Adidas nearly $60 million dollars. Additionally, China’s “Zero Covid” lockdowns last year caused in part a 36% drop in revenue for Adidas compared to years prior.

As a step towards a solution, Gulden announced that the company is slashing its dividends from 3.30 euros to 0.70 euro cents per share pending shareholder approval. 

Adidas has labeled 2023 a “transition year” for the company. 

“Adidas has all the ingredients to be successful. But we need to put our focus back on our core: product, consumers, retail partners, and athletes,” Gulden said. “I am convinced that over time we will make Adidas shine again. But we need some time.”

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CNN)

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk Bashes Disabled Ex-Twitter Employee, Gets Blowback

Published

on

After Musk claimed the former employee “did no actual work,” the staffer calmly directed passive-aggressive insults right back at the billionaire.


Excuse Me, Do I Still Work Here?

Elon Musk brawled online with a former Twitter employee who didn’t know whether he was fired Tuesday, accusing the staffer of exploiting his disability.

Haraldur “Halli” Thorleifsson, who has muscular dystrophy, joined Twitter in 2021 after it acquired the creative agency he founded: Ueno.

He said on Twitter that he was unable to confirm whether he was still a Twitter employee nine days after being locked out of his work computer, despite reaching out to the head of HR and Musk himself through email.

At the time, Twitter had laid off at least 200 workers, or some 10% of its remaining workforce.

In search of an answer, Thorleifsson tweeted at Musk, who responded with the question: “What work have you been doing?”

After being given permission by Musk to break confidentiality, Thorleifsson listed several of his accomplishments, including leading “design crits to help level up design across the company.”

“Level up from what design to what? Pics or it didn’t happen,” Musk replied.

We haven’t hired design roles in 4 months. What changes did you make to help with the youths?”

Thorleifsson reminded Musk that he couldn’t access any pictures because he was locked out of his work computer.

Musk stopped replying to the tweets, but hours later he returned to the platform to lob invective at his former employee.

Musk Vs. Halli

“The reality is that this guy (who is independently wealthy) did no actual work, claimed as his excuse that he had a disability that prevented him from typing, yet was simultaneously tweeting up a storm,” Musk tweeted, apparently referring to Thorleifsson. “Can’t say I have a lot of respect for that.”

“But was he fired? No, you can’t be fired if you weren’t working in the first place,” he added.

In a later Twitter thread, Thorleifsson said he could type for one or two hours at a time before his hands cramped, but that in pre-Musk Twitter, that wasn’t a problem because he was a senior director.

He added that despite his crippling disability, he worked hard for years to build Ueno.

“We grew fast and made money,” he said. “I think that’s what you are referring to when you say independently wealthy? That I independently made my money, as opposed to say, inherited an emerald mine.”

Thorleifsson made several more passive-aggressive jabs at Musk.

“I joined at a time when the company was growing fast,” he wrote. “You kind of did the opposite. The company had a fair amount of issues, but then again, most bigger companies do. Or even small companies, like Twitter today.”

Thorleifsson said that immediately following his back-and-forth with Musk, Twitter’s head of HR confirmed that he had indeed been fired from the company.

See what others are saying: (Business Insider) (CNN) (Yahoo)

Continue Reading

Business

Twitter Becomes First Major Social Media Platform to Allow Cannabis Ads in U.S.

Published

on

Industry leaders hope the move will encourage other platforms to change their policies on cannabis advertising.


Twitter Updates Ad Rules

Twitter announced Wednesday that the company is changing its policies to allow cannabis companies to run ads on the platform.

The decision makes Twitter the first social media platform to allow cannabis ads in the U.S., where it is legal in nearly half of all states but not at the federal level. The company, however, did include a number of restrictions under the new policy.

Most significantly, companies are prohibited from running ads that promote the sale of cannabis, with the exception of “ads for topical (non-ingestible) hemp-derived CBD topical products containing equal to or less than the 0.3% THC government-set threshold.” 

As far as what advertisers can show, Twitter did not explicitly say, but it has been reported that they will be allowed to promote their brands and provide informational content.   

Beyond that, all advertisers “must be licensed by the appropriate authorities,” authorized by Twitter, and they can only advertise in locations where they are licensed.

There are also rules about what these companies can show. For example, they cannot target ads for people under 21 — nor can they show people using cannabis or under the influence. Additionally, there are bans on making claims “of efficacy or health benefits” as well as false or misleading claims.

Twitter made it clear that advertisers are liable for ensuring that they are in compliance “with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and advertising guidelines.” 

A Possible Growing Trend

Twitter’s new move policy has been widely cheered by the industry, and already, companies have begun to take advantage of this new update.

According to Reuters, the medical and recreational cannabis provider Trulieve Cannabis Corp has launched a multistate ad campaign on Twitter. Other companies that make cannabis accessories like PAX — which is an industry leader best known for its vaporizers — have also started advertising their devices, per Marijuana Moment.

“We’re excited to be among the first of Twitter’s cannabis advertising partners and be able to engage customers more directly,” PAX Vice President of Marketing Luke Droulez said in a press release. “After decades of prohibitionist propaganda, there is an opportunity to destigmatize and normalize the plant and its use.”

Twitter’s decision raises questions about whether other social media companies will follow suit. There has been some movement in the space: just last month, Google updated its policies to allow ads for FDA-approved pharmaceuticals containing CBD and “topical, hemp-derived CBD products with THC content of 0.3% or less.” 

Those ads, however, are limited to California, Colorado, and Puerto Rico, and some formats are banned, like YouTube Masthead ads.

Some in the industry have speculated that this change is not representative of broader trends, and instead just a decision Twitter made because it is struggling to keep advertisers under Elon Musk’s leadership.

The company has reportedly lost more than half of its top advertisers, and major firms have actively told clients not to buy ads since his takeover. To that point, Twitter is trying exceptionally hard to get cannabis advertisers.

Amy Deneson, the co-founder of the Cannabis Media Council, a trade association focused on cannabis education, told Politico that the platform is not setting any minimum ad buys for cannabis companies, a significant departure from the $5,000 to $10,000 many advertising platforms require.

Beyond that, the company is also offering a one-to-one match for every dollar cannabis advertisers spend on ads until the end of March — so a $50 campaign would actually be a $100 one.

Even if the move is just a bid to attract new advertisers at a time when the company is dealing with financial troubles, if it proves to be successful, it is hard to imagine other platforms would not follow in Twitter’s footsteps.

See what others are saying: (Axios) (Politico) (Reuters)

Continue Reading