501–510 of 1001 posts
In similar news: my left hand acquired my right hand today in an all stock deal valuing the combined hands at $1T. Praising the announcement my arms noted on the deal: “With these two hands now together, there’s nothing our combined fist of might can’t do.” Competitors, my left and right feet, declined to comment on the merger but are said to be in their own separate talks about a deal.
Seems to me he's just scammed xAI investors, who thought they were investing in an AI company, into bailing him out of his failed Twitter purchase - they are now the idiots who paid $44B for Twitter (recently valued by Fidelity at $10B), and Musk gets his money back.
IANAL, but this might be brought to court, if the company mission (as defined in their operating agreement) is to invest in AI, then buying X is not in the best interest of the company and not what the investors signed up for. It could be fraud.
Nearly ever such company is "limited" to engage "in any lawful activity" so as avoid exactly this issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way though? I’ve yet to see anything that rivals any accomplishments by NASA. Or were you being punny?
Did you not watch them land the starship? That's easily the biggest space-faring accomplishment since Apollo, and certainly not something NASA could replicate in the foreseeable future. Speaking of the moon, NASA's SLS is projected to cost several orders of magnitude more than a super heavy launch, and is only aiming for the moon as opposed to Mars. If there's one place that Doge could really, actually stop a lot of…
At 0.3% of the federal budget - if NASA was 100% waste, fixing it wouldn’t make a dent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla bought Solar City for $2.6 billion, and now it looks like the Tesla Energy division had about that much in net income last year alone.
None of that is solar roofs. That product never worked. It's nearly all batteries. The Solar City was worthless and it hasn't improved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That military apparatus is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not support the current president.
Let's be realistic: Congress has given away its power for decades. It is nowadays a Congress permanently divided and pretty much non-functional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"strongest AI models in existence" [citation needed]
To be fair they said one of the strongest models. We're at the point now where any heavily monetized player can build one of the strongest models. I mean, especially with all of the incredibly open Chinese companies releasing cutting edge research now that most American firms have gone quiet or only releasing their tailings.
He has done this move before with Tesla buying Solar City. When you do a deal with yourself you can assign any value you want to assets, it isn’t a competitive process. In the previous case Solar City was dying but its acquisition by Tesla was pitched as a great synergy. https://www.businessinsider.com/solarcity-tesla-energy-belea... There were a few lawsuits from Tesla shareholders about the acquisition regarding se…
The solar city acquisition was for "only" $2.6 billion. This deal is way bigger. I'm not sure what the Tesla valuation was at the time of that deal, but I have to imagine it's proportionally way bigger too. A $45 billion acquisition when the acquirer, xAI, has an $80 billion valuation will threaten the integrity of xAI. Particularly because that's just a paper valuation and xAI doesn't have much of any revenue. If I…
This move makes it more likely that the internal number for TSLA is not good, and Elon is expecting the price to go down. He has access to the real revenue number. If it's going well, he wouldn't have to perform this maneuver. xAI was relatively separated from X and TSLA, and wasn't having the backlashes associated with the two. Now he risks having the xAI branding tarnished too. He wouldn't do this unless the TSLA i…
This doesn’t seem like a branding related deal, it seems like wanting to further marry their operations for strategic reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This whole thread is true consistent statements that differ only in emphasis.
> differ only in emphasis The commenter you are responding to is explicitly intending to place more emphasis on the reason why the lawsuit failed. That is why they used the phrase “burying the lede” in their initial comment.