Given that Elon Musk has never, ever, invented anything nor gave even one cent to help others, this is beyond hilarious.

Plus the irony to ask a business shark to make a shark-deterrent device...

Mebbe Far Reach! 100% back Colas' view except I'd be a lot less diplomatic!

Anyways some good and bad news for ya champ, there's 2 independently tested and proven Aussie products.
One is Ocean Gaurdian/Shark Shield which I use but has unfortunately gone south and shut up shop-like Quobba fins such a pity.
The other is Rpela, a WA based company that use the same technology-check 'em out here; www.rpela.com/
The independent testing was done by Huveneers et al and here's a good summary of research of different shark repellant systems to date and lists the electro magntic study
www.sharksmart.nsw.gov.au/technology-trials-and-research
So no need to brown nose an absolute R sole who wouldn't give you the steam of his pee. You can get a system fitted to your board now and support an Aussie company before it gets bought out by unscrupulous investors (e.g. EM) and shut down as is the Ocean Gaurdian story.
Good luck mate

Rango said..
Starlink helping out Ukraine a bit.

He did it only because he managed to use it to get government subsidies, as most of his ventures.

Refs:

SpaceX/Elon Musk received substantial government funding, international financial support, and defense contracts for providing Starlink hardware and services to Ukraine, despite initial public perception framing it as an entirely private donation.

The government funding and advantages broke down as follows:

Early U.S. Government Funding (2022): While SpaceX donated a portion of the initial hardware and service, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) paid millions of dollars to purchase and transport thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine shortly after the invasion began.

Allied Country Contributions: Foreign governments funded a major share of the equipment and ongoing monthly subscriptions. Poland, for example, paid for over 10,000 Starlink terminals for Ukraine and covered their ongoing service fees, alongside contributions from the UK and other NATO members.

U.S. Department of Defense Contract (2023): In late 2022, SpaceX formally requested that the U.S. Pentagon take over funding for Ukraine's Starlink operations. In June 2023, the U.S. Department of Defense officially signed a contract with SpaceX to procure Starlink satellite services for Ukraine under defense assistance budgets.

Strategic and Commercial Advantages: The high-visibility deployment proved Starlink's resilience in an active conflict zone. This real-world battlefield validation helped SpaceX secure lucrative government defense contracts, including Starshield—a dedicated, classified military satellite network for U.S. defense and intelligence agencies.

hilly said..
Elon Musk is a very low life form. Possibly worse than Trump which is an exceptionally low bar.

Yes. Just the fact that he gladly got money from USAID before killing it and kill hundred of thousand people as a side effect and gaslighted the public about it shows what a vile scum of the earth he is.

Rango said..
Isnt that how sh#t gets done .

In dictatorships, maybe.

Musk is actually behaving exactly like an oligarch, he uses any means possible, including massive corruption, to make business by getting profits while making taxpayers support the costs. Starlink could only exist because the (private) cost to launch via Falcon9 was heavily state-subsidized... as in your typical oligarchy.

An oligarch is defined as an individual who uses concentrated wealth to exert direct control over political outcomes, public policy, critical national infrastructure, and information channels, often blurring the line between private interest and state power. QED.

colas said..

Rango said..
Isnt that how sh#t gets done .

In dictatorships, maybe.

Musk is actually behaving exactly like an oligarch, he uses any means possible, including massive corruption, to make business by getting profits while making taxpayers support the costs. Starlink could only exist because the (private) cost to launch via Falcon9 was heavily state-subsidized... as in your typical oligarchy.

An oligarch is defined as an individual who uses concentrated wealth to exert direct control over political outcomes, public policy, critical national infrastructure, and information channels, often blurring the line between private interest and state power. QED.

Yep pretty much everything government wants gets done through buisiness ,they do not have that capacity.

colas said..

Rango said..
Yep pretty much everything government wants gets done through buisiness ,they do not have that capacity.

Please, this kind of blanket statement is just propaganda that started with Reagan.
[1] lots of missions are better done by the government (army, police, justice, healthcare, utilities such as water or broadband...)
[2] one of the missions of a government in non-mafia states is to provide a fair ecosystem for private companies to compete.

Oligarchs like Musk do everything to avoid [2]: get their cake (subsidies) and eat it {no competition), and establish de facto monopolies to get even more anticompetitive leverage. The "robber barons" of a century ago (which Trump admires) is the reason of the anti-trust laws.

tl;dr: Musk wont care about anti-shark devices. Shark devices development needs millions, not billions. There are plenty of decent human beings that can fund this development without begging the worst human being on earth.

Doing a great job of that ,we have record number of nurses quiting the public sector record police quiting record ambulance ramping and chronically under supplied armed forces .And there's plenty with their hand in the subsidy jar ,sometimes they're worthwhile sometimes not.
Ai tech will eventually be usable for shark mitigation ,I never once said Musk would get it developed.I,m not even signing the petition .You,ve just gone on a triggered rant.

Im staying out of all the personalized stuff.

This petition is pretty simple - a very capable tech guy just might take an interest if asked. Maybe he'd just fund others. Maybe he swims or his kids are involved. Thats the only point here. I'd like myself and my family to feel safer. We have shark shield, have had them for 10 years, board version and dive version. But they don't protect individuals well enough in most water sports.

backbeach said.. unfortunately gone south and shut up shop-like Quobba fins such a pity.

quobba is still going strong! Don’t listen to rumours.
Please continue to support them. Not only are their fins amazing but they’re an Aussie business owned by WA surfers, who put everything on the line to get into the market.
* I have no affiliation with quobba, other than being a happy customer & having respect for their business

Reach said..
www.change.org/p/elon-musk-please-create-effective-personal-shark-protection

Should 've put a trigger warning on this post.
Just avoid anyones Tesla being defaced or burned.

All of this running around, spending heaps of money looking for a magic shark deterrent sort of makes me laugh.
I have read a few books on shark attacks from when I was young from the late 1970s. A lot of the attacks occured from the early 1900s to the 1960s. Now that the fences, (I'm too scared to say nets in case someone gets upset), have been removed and fishing rules & regs have been updated, pollution, conservation etc have helped fish, penguins, seal, whale populations increase. Then obviously the shark population will rise by taking advantage of it. So now we have history repeating itself & we will hear of shark attacks quite often. Not to forget a higher population of water users. Although that will be kept in balance by the attacks & fear of entering the water.
Most of us are just focussed on the Shark deterrent and forget about what is used & has been used on dry land as a wild animal deterrent. Fences, nets, weapons, noise, visual & scare tactics. The two others are to run & hide when an animal is spotted either by you are someone else or a device like a tower, or aerial devices like planes, helicopters & drones. Then their is body armour & camouflage.
So how are we able to stop a shark attack to almost 100%? Well again it makes me laugh when everyone is looking for only one or maybe two answers.
For me the best answer is all of the above deterrents. Obviously that will be too expensive for our government. So what is the cheapest & most easiest for our government to implement? Signs! Signs to tell you not to enter the water! If you do, you will be fined! Yay. More government revenue at the inconvenience of the public. Wait & see. And no. You won't be approached by someone in authority to get your identification do they can hand you a fine. It will be an AI camera with facial recognition that will see you enter the water. Then see you returning back to a car park or pathway.
Most of us already know there are AI cameras looking at Rock fishers and sends a lifesaving alarm if they get washed off the rocks.
What I would like to see is the return of better shark fences, nets that are monitored for aquatic life. Not just left for weeks or months without maintenance.
The other is shark tag receivers placed in entrances to just about every lakes, bays & rivers to monitor sharks entering & exiting. There are none in my lake entrance to let me know if they have entered for me to make a decision where I would like to go paddleboarding, wing foiling & fishing.
Understanding that for every tagged bull shark there are probably two or up to over hundred more depending on the size of the entrance. But it tells me they are there. No good for me if a receiver station is only in the ocean when I'm in the lake.
And no good having drones flying over dirty, reflective water that don't see anything below the surface. It wouldn't have stopped the shark that bit my foot whilst surfing. Lol.

colas said..

Rango said..
Doing a great job of that ,we have record number of nurses quiting the public sector record police quiting record ambulance ramping and chronically under supplied armed forces .

Thats on purpose.
They do not dare cut the programs, they just reduce funding so they dysfunction, and they use this pretense to privatize them.
That's exactly what the infamous "Project 2025" plan is.
And then the costs explode.

Just compare the operating costs of public and private health insurance, or utilities, or prisons before and after privatizations.
In France, where we have both public and private health insurance, the operating costs of social security is 5% and the private insurances, for the same service, more than 20%, because they must spend on marketing and dividends.

The political strategy of deliberate underfunding to force structural spending cuts or private market adoption is academically referred to as the "Starve the Beast" strategy. The Concept: First coined in the United States during the Reagan administration and revived under subsequent conservative administrations, this policy uses deliberate revenue reductions (tax cuts) or funding freezes to create artificial budget deficits. These deficits are then cited as an unavoidable crisis requiring the downsizing or outsourcing of state functions.

pinguet.free.fr/bartlett7.pdf

Is this what the current French admin is doing now ,with all the rioting going on .

Or the Covid spending hole everyone got into.