431–440 of 1001 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What’s impressive about Tesla? There is this weird revisionist history now that Musk is hated to dismiss all Tesla's accomplishments as meaningless. The traditional auto industry would have never embraced EVs to the extent they have if someone did not disrupt the market in a way like Tesla did. That is both impressive and huge net positive for humanity in a way that is an extremely rare achievement for any startup.
> The traditional auto industry would have never embraced EVs to the extent they have if someone did not disrupt the market in a way like Tesla did. This isn't clear to me. Maybe in the US? but in Europe, there should be no new CO2-emitting cars by 2035. There's a global trend to move to EV due to climate change that has little to do with Tesla.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He founded (for some definition) the two most impressive American corporations of the century and tweeted a lot to build a direct connection to people.
I’m wondering under what definition he “founded” Tesla rather than being the investor who took it over years later kicking the founders out? I’d give him SpaceX, but it definitely did better when he was paying less attention to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> entirely legally. Hypothetically, would it be legal to fund a president whose policy was "let's nuke everyone"?
Apparently, the answer is "yes"
A lot of people are unsurprisingly throwing shade on Musk being involved here but I think it's really important to understand what this is fundamentally about: stopping or fundamentally changing OpenAI's plans to be spun off. The issue at hand is that OpenAI (the private, currently "capped profit" entity, henceforth in this post referred to as OpenAI-P) is trying to get spun out of control of the OpenAI non-profit (h…
Could it be that part of the the Musk-led group's offer of $100 billion is a tactic to drive up the valuation of Open AI-P, so that it's more painful/difficult for Open AI-P to buy itself out of Open AI-NP?
> Elon's offer to purchase the OpenAI nonprofit for $97.4billion isn't going to happen, but it may seriously complicate OpenAI's efforts to claim the nonprofit is fairly valued at $40billion. If you won't sell it for $97.4billion, that means you think it's worth more than that. https://x.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1889064215710941594
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My hope is that he'll eventually make some big mistakes that will send him to jail. Or does presidential grace give him total immunity?
Given Musk is currently pissing off foreign governments , there is a real danger that one of those governments will just send in a nice looking person with some tea to have a quiet chat with him. After which, he will look very tired, and suddenly stop being "turbulent", as per the meaning several judges have recently noted in Trump trials was once infamously said by a king of a priest. Then I will be sad, because I w…
I too would have liked to see Musk go to Mars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The traditional auto industry would have never embraced EVs to the extent they have if someone did not disrupt the market in a way like Tesla did. This isn't clear to me. Maybe in the US? but in Europe, there should be no new CO2-emitting cars by 2035. There's a global trend to move to EV due to climate change that has little to do with Tesla.
You are pointing to a disrupted market as evidence that the market didn't need to be disrupted. A quick search suggest that EU ban on CO2-emitting cars was from 2022, 5 years after Tesla started selling the Model 3. The global trend toward EVs was largely started by Tesla showing that EVs were a viable product with real demand.
And “disruption” doesn’t mean whet you think it means. Were any of the existing car manufacturers ever threatened by Tesla as far as market share and revenue like what happened to RIM and Nokia in the smart phone space?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a bad analysis. There's clearly non-market forces at play for why Sam Altman doesn't want to give control to a group associated with Elon.
Well, they'll end up having to convince a judge that that those "non-market forces" are worth $50 billion+. Good luck!