531–540 of 1001 posts
"For so long as Mr. Musk is serving on the Board and for 90 days thereafter, Mr. Musk will not, either alone or as a member of a group, become the beneficial owner of more than 14.9% of the Company’s common stock outstanding at such time, including for these purposes economic exposure through derivative securities, swaps, or hedging transactions." This is the second line in the linked filing, and something a number o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are so obsessed with that detail. Elon and JB wanted to start their own company and they had the money. Tesla had no money and was going nowhere without Musk. Instead of creating his own company he agree to join forces and basically fund Tesla. Seems like not just starting a competitor was the nice thing to do. As doing so would have 100% doomed Tesla.
I don't think the OP was referring to Tesla since technically they are a car company, not a "tech" company, but still you can find interviews with real founders of Tesla who stated on record they don't understand why Elon calls himself a "Tesla founder", but since they took his money, he is their boss (or was). I think he was referring to PayPal, a tech company. Even now all over the net you can see articles claiming…
And I explained why it is really not that insane. It was basically him throwing them a bone, they should be grateful. And of course they were horrible and ran Tesla into the ground and hid facts from Elon.
> I think he was referring to PayPal
I don't think so.
> X.com and designed a very simple page where you put two peoples email addresses and you "could" send them money. It was happening at the same time as PayPal had the same idea and similar website
This is not true. X.com from the beginning was payment company. Confinity was originally a security company for Palm platform. From there they switched to payments.
From Wikipedia:
> In March 2000, Confinity merged with x.com, an online financial services company founded in March 1999 by Elon Musk.
The two companies merged so all the people of both companies are rightly called founders. And non of the others disagree with that.
> because personal leverage of Musk father, who owns multiple diamond mines in ZA
Please provide evdience. This 'dimond mine' nonsense has mostly been discredited. The best researched story about that basically showed that it was like a 30k investment sometime in the 80s. Certainty not enough to convince a bank to do anything.
Musk father was wealthy because he was an engineer.
> This story was somewhat easy to find and popular back in the old days of the internet
And well researched probably ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luckily your stating something with no actual argument points to support your statement doesn't hold any weight whatsoever to whether it has any truth to it or not.
You want argument points to support the idea that Twitter is relevant to society? It is the fourth most visited site on the internet. It has well over three hundred million active users. It was one of the main methods of communication for the last sitting president of the united states. It is worth more than three billion dollars. It is currently what this subset of society in this thread is discussing because we fin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All I see with Tesla is how government policy can successfully change markets. Tesla exists not because of Musk’s genius[0], but because of tax credits and carbon offset credits that allowed Tesla to be profitable early. Without Musk, someone else would’ve pulled it off, without the policy Musk would have done something else. 0 - Again, Musk didn’t found tesla, he did a hostile takeover and has tried to rewrite histo…
> Without Musk, someone else would’ve pulled it off, without the policy Musk would have done something else. You can use this argument to say that no one deserves credit for doing anything. Seems like a dead-end way of thinking about the world to me.
This is the biggest thing to happen to twitter since the trump presidency. Both big for twitter, and awful for society.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. That’s why free speech policies shouldn’t be dictated by partisan concerns. You never know who will be in control of your social media platform in the future.
This is great news! Twitter and the rest of the rotten and censorious platforms could use a proper shake-up. Hope the authoritarians and political repressives and anyone who works on the content moderation team all resign in protest! Good riddance!
It’s easy to call for change without actually having to build any of it. Odds are zero things change about Twitter’s content policy, as it’s about as permissive as you can get while operating in the US. There’s a lot less sinister intent than one might think at first blush; Twitter wants users to stick around, banning them is a really bad way to do that.
I assumed he would optimize how he spends his time.
He mentioned once that he sometimes sleeps/slept at the factory.
I had a similar thought on Putin: as long as the war is ongoing he has less time to do other things.
When Biden took over trump I also thought that bidens team might be able to do more change than the trump team because he fired so many and golfed often.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon Musk is kind of obnoxious. He lies (or "exaggerates"). But what Tesla has done is insane. It's happened so quickly, and that's leaving aside the rockets. The hard evidence that we can build new things, that we can progress and build a future that's better than the present is so important. If it takes a flawed man to show us that, I'll take it. If you hate Elon Musk, consider probing your mind deeply to figure ou…
If Ayn Rand called me a villain I'd beam with pride. I don't think we in any way need to lionize the mythology of John Galt like figures to make progress and build a future better than the present.