Earlier quoted context omitted.
The statement was not that "he hates her" but that "he hates that she hates him".
I did misread that. Several times in fact.
No drama, we've all skipped a word or three at times.
Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California
61–70 of 85 posts
Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California
#62It does seem a bit weird to me that SpaceX was never based out of Houston and has such a small presence. They have the NASA base there and scores of private space companies, and the lack of zoning means the housing problem is permanently fixed (at least until someone zones the city). Moving Starlink production to Austin just feels like moving to a worse but slightly cheaper San Francisco.
Houston has mission control, lots of astronaut training, and a lot of administration in Houston. But Pasadena CA has the Jet Propulsion Lab, which is a big part of the design of the rockets and robots and what not.
SoCal also has Edwards AFB ("the Center of the Aerospace Flight Testing Universe"), Vandenberg Space Force Base, etc.
Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if there is a chance employees would actually be in favor of that. Considering that the high taxes also affects them and there is also the increasing criminality problem
"High California taxes" is a meme. However, the reality is that if you own a home, taxation in Texas may be even worse than California.
hard to believe that is true if you adjust for the cost of housing.
Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California
#64I agree with Musk about the California law, but a CEO is supposed to make decisions for a company to increase shareholder value (and arguably benefit other stakeholders), not to make political points. 'His disclosures followed the move by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, to sign a new law Monday that aims to prevent schools from informing families if their children identify as gay or transgender. “This is th…
To be clear, the main animating force in Elon's life over the last few years is his oldest coming out as trans. That's why he bought Twitter and turned it into a nonstop Klan rally, that's why he supports Trump, that's why he opposes this law. His first-born is trans.
My understanding is that it is less about them coming out as trans, but they fact that they are a socialist and hate his guts.
Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if there is a chance employees would actually be in favor of that. Considering that the high taxes also affects them and there is also the increasing criminality problem
"High California taxes" is a meme. However, the reality is that if you own a home, taxation in Texas may be even worse than California.
Yea, it's a meme but let's not exaggerate. When you consider total[1] tax burden, including property tax, income tax, sales and other taxes, California is high, but not the highest, and Texas is low but not the lowest.
There are many other states that also have lower taxes than California that don't have the massive cultural downsides of Texas. Honestly, if I were planning to move out of California (I probably never will) and wanted to pick a state to live in, there are a lot of factors that would come into play and taxes are probably not even top 5. It's just not that big a deal.
1: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-bur...
Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California
#66It does seem a bit weird to me that SpaceX was never based out of Houston and has such a small presence. They have the NASA base there and scores of private space companies, and the lack of zoning means the housing problem is permanently fixed (at least until someone zones the city). Moving Starlink production to Austin just feels like moving to a worse but slightly cheaper San Francisco.
Makes sense that SpaceX was in LA because it is one of the historic rocket design hubs, if not the rocket design capital of the world.
> the rocket design capital of the world
Pretty hard to compete with Moscow, don't you think?
Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California
#67It does seem a bit weird to me that SpaceX was never based out of Houston and has such a small presence. They have the NASA base there and scores of private space companies, and the lack of zoning means the housing problem is permanently fixed (at least until someone zones the city). Moving Starlink production to Austin just feels like moving to a worse but slightly cheaper San Francisco.
Makes sense that SpaceX was in LA because it is one of the historic rocket design hubs, if not the rocket design capital of the world.
Well Houston has a massive space industry too (hence why they call it "space city"). My thought has always been that he's been becoming more frustrated with CA for many years, but he just moved from SF to LA, and now he's moving From LA to Austin and Starbase, when (in my mind) it would make more sense to build and design the starlink satellites (among other things) in Houston where the space industry is much stronger.
You do bring up a good point about JPL being in LA, which would certainly have been why he originally started SpaceX there. That used to be the only focus of the company. I was thinking more about starlink just because that's what the article focuses on (among a few other things)
Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is discussed in the Walter Isaacson biography that came out last year. Saying he “hates” his daughter is completely wrong and ignores first hand claims from both Musk and his biographer. >Musk only learned she had transitioned through a secondhand source >The wife of Elon's brother got a text, Isaacson wrote, which said: "Hey, I'm transgender, and my name is now Jenna". The text from the child, as in the biograp…
I didn't say he hates his daughter. I'd suggest you reread.
Ah my bad, I read it on my phone and read it as "he hates his daughter". Sorry.
Well the rest of my comment is still relevant anyway I guess.
Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes sense that SpaceX was in LA because it is one of the historic rocket design hubs, if not the rocket design capital of the world.
> the rocket design capital of the world Pretty hard to compete with Moscow, don't you think?
Maybe it was competition in the 1980's with the soviets trailing, but with the fall of the USSR in 91' the competition was over. Through the 90's and 2000's NASA and the DoD kept pushing new exploratory technology and increasingly advanced and technical engine designs.
SpaceX was notorious for eschewing experienced rocket scientists and grinding out work from novice engineers, but I think it is fair to say they still benefited from the pool of experience they did tap into.
Re: Musk Says He Will Move X and SpaceX Headquarters Out of California
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> not sure history shows parents have on average been comparatively kind to gay children Historically parents weren’t kind to any children because they were costly and died a lot. (Almost no ancient culture condemned—as we do today—a parent exposing an unwanted baby, for instance, for reasons ranging from birth defect to family rivalry [1]. This behaviour, too, in conserved in animals [2].) There was a good thread on…
Using absolute across the board lesser investment to dismiss comparative investment is a bit sloppy and a red herring. The thread you reference is criminality and infanticide, not parental prioritization of kids old enough to be known as gay/trans. I suspect most people don't know if their infant is gay/trans. I also assert there is a difference between prioritizing relationships and resources on a parent to child le…
> thread you reference is criminality and infanticide
The point is historically--and across the animal kingdom--the default is parents minimally "prioritising relationships and resources on a parent to child level." Irrespective of odds of survival.
> fallacy you've fallen into from your prior post is to confuse that population level dynamic with the parents drive to pass on their particular genes
The drive to pass on genes is biological. It operates at the individual and group levels. We have no evidence the desire to pass on one's genes has any biological roots; reckless abandon produces more offspring, after all, and plenty of species, including humans, show both kin preference and out-of-group sympathies.
> insane to me that it isn't even possible to consider the parent has an instinct to prioritize relationships and resources with children most likely to reproduce
We're having a discussion. It's being considered. The problem is the evidence is stacked against it. If a phenotype is conserved across animals and humans, the simplest hypothesis is it has utility. At that point, evolutionary pressure at all levels will tend to work to conserve it. Including through parental instincts.
> some want to work hard to make sure it isn't seen as a reasonable hypothesis
It's a reasonable hypothesis. The problem is it has no evidence for it and plenty for the null. Pigs roll over and smother their piglets. That isn't a sign of hidden selection pressure, it's just bad parenting.
That said, I'm not cleanly rejecting it. We don't yet have a good model for the genetic basis of mental disorders. And a lot of mental disorders, e.g. a tendency towards random violence, could have served someone well in antiquity. So it very well could be that parents rejecting kids who won't have children in high school is innate to some. But again, we have no evidence for it.