A bit of a different though. Elon did not intentionally destroy the Falcon 9 in question, and SpaceX worked very hard to determine what caused the issue and rectify it for future flights. Zuckerberg knew for years what was going on with user data, and gave zero f*s until they were caught.

Substantially easier to throw shade (passive aggressively even) from the moral high ground.

Elon cares tremendously about bad press. He's specifically banned all reporters from filming launch or recovery attempts in case there are failures.

You'll notice that there are NO social media posts whenever there's a accident (of which there have been many).

Zuck drawing attention to it must have really pissed Elon off.

Source? Anecdotally speaking, it seems that there's been about as much coverage for each failed launch as there has been for each successful one.

Um, except when Elon posts video compilations of their failures... (seems to me they're pretty open)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2PWKdQzuU8

They do that in a carefully controlled way, well after the event is too cold for the news cycle. And even then, some events that are too dicey-looking are never seen.

Mark, this is not a criticism. Given the way the media handles such things (i.e. sensationally and with minimal or just plain wrong context) it's really for the best.

I'm confused--aren't the launches broadcast live via webstream?

Yes, but landings at sea tend to cause the video feed to go away, and it doesn't come back if anything goes wrong.

I'm sure they have a delay.

I don't understand why this is downvoted. This is exactly how a PR firm or department will handle those things.

What? The general public films all SpaceX launches and all landings on land, not to mention reporters.

>NO social media posts whenever there's a accident

Sometimes there are - in fact its a running joke that he calls them "rapid unscheduled disassemblies" (or something like that).

inb4 the conspiracy theories that the rocket blowing up was to set back a competitor to StarLink

I'm afraid that ship has already sailed...

How is deleting a profile on a website "passive aggressive?"

It is when you do it publicly and announce it to the world.

Where is the passive part?

Do you know what passive aggressive means?

Well, no. Doing so openly and not only your own, but also publicly from your companys ... is much more agressive.

So if he would have done it, only because of that statement, I would say clearly overreaction. But deleting Facebook because it is Facebook ... makes still sense.

I think you’d at least passive aggressively be mad too if a moving company blew up the truck with your stuff on it, accidentally or not.

If you only had that furniture, yes; if you had no money left to replace it, definitely.

Not when you have enough wealth to replace it. Shit happens, and getting furniture into space is an intrinsic risky affair.

Plus a satellite doesn't have intrinsic value. If a moving truck lost all my stuff I didn't intrinsically value I'd just contact my insurance company and buy a new one. Obviously it takes time to build a satellite, but it's not like it was personal.

Are you seriously comparing a 85M satellite's destruction to deleting a Facebook page?