741–750 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much of it is tied up to a criminally overvalued Tesla stock though? Sure, Tesla could go to zero and he'd still be a fabulously wealthy man, but with how things are moving - It wouldn't surprise me that he's about the fall down the ranks. Let's see how much power he has once the "richest man in the world" aura fades away.
I've been hearing about the inevitable decline of Tesla for about 10 years now.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/stella...
It feels like Musk is single-handedly making a great case for why unlimited accumulation of wealth is a bad idea. It's pretty colorful language, but my mind immediately jumps to "financial terrorist". He's using his enormous amount of wealth and influence as a weapon to bludgeon anyone and anything in his way.
We need an income and a wealth cap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine question: are people genuinely against the work being done by DOGE? I am frequenting both X and HN + other liberal leaning news sources, and it's like the people in the comments are living in different solar systems. I see a post on X with receipts showing millions of dollars of pretty obvious waste and/or corruption, many involving news outlet grants and subscriptions, including names, amounts, etc. Then I s…
USAID was audited by an (actual) independent (actual) auditor in November of 2024. They recommended a review of leases and to tighten up their employee expense reporting requirements. You have no reason to believe Elon is either competent, nor independent, nor well-intentioned on any of this. No, no one is against “a more efficient government.” Obviously. No one is “pro-fraud.” Obviously. Please post specific example…
You say that like it’s a good thing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what I mean. Elon makes decisions to manage capital and talent, in order to make good things for the world, and thus accumulates more capital and talent to make more good things. He started from Zip2 and built his way to managing multiple companies, each of which make groundbreaking products and services. These products and services wouldn't exist without Elon. They wouldn't exist if capital wouldn't b…
> built his way > each of which make groundbreaking products and services It's like you didn't read a word I said. But to respond to your claim, which I've heard many times before – including from Paul Graham. Maybe he's some genius at allocating capital in your eyes or something, but I don't think his investment decisions were even that radical, but they are within the conservative circles of people who usually have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm too smooth brained to see the obvious reason. Would love for someone with more folds to say what the reason is instead of hiding it behind its obviousness. OpenAI-NP can either have a $40B from spinning out OpenAI-P or $97B in cash. In theory, they could literally just go and buy back their stake in OpenAI-P and have $57B left over for other AI endeavors if the valuation of it at $40B were remotely reasonable! If…
Which number is bigger isn't the only calculation to make. Elon has shown himself to be a capricious and distracted steward of the companies he assumes control of. He has a lot of debt and is already over-leveraged on multiple companies as well as his new roles in government. X has plunged in value, Tesla sales are plummeting worldwide, Elon's scorched earth political agenda invites unending controversy that OpenAI a…
If the existing assets are worth $40b then for $97b as a board you could sell it, build another OpenAI (in fact you could build 2 new competitors) and still have change left over to pursue your mission. If your charter is to "produce lots of OpenAI accessible to everyone" this has to fit that mission - more AI competitors, more access to AI, etc. No matter what your feelings are of the characters in this story... by definition given their charter they have $40billion worth of assets (by their valuation) to achieve their mission - which includes the PV of all internal advantages/models/patents/etc they have developed. By accepting this deal they are ahead.
So:
- Either the assets are worth $40 billion and to further their charter they should take the deal (and by definition have more assets/firepower to do their mission) OR - $40 billion is significantly undervalued which then raises other questions around governance, internal dealings, etc to try to convert to a for-profit by buying the non-profit's assets. If they go with the internal plan with the other deal on the table it could be argued as self-sabotage. I'm not sure of US law, but it could give rise to the validity of the deal legally. A non-profit converting to a profit is already a bit "hazy" from my understanding.