Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 139 posts

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#81

Post by outside1234 »

kjksf wrote: post #48
khriss wrote: post #21

> Elon has control and optimizes for cool shit and going to Mars This trope needs to die. SpaceX has no plans to go to Mars. Elon meanwhile regularly says forward looking stuff to attempt to justify the lofty valuations of his companies. Let's just say there is a ... mixed track record on these proclamations (Full self driving, Hyperloop anyone?)

Musk just tied his compensation to having 1 million people on Mars. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... Do explain to me his evil plan of becoming rich by lying about going to Mars and yet agreeing to only get paid when he does go to Mars.

Sure, until he changes that plan to something else that is 5 years out in the future next year.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#82

Post by [deleted] »

outside1234 wrote: post #75
throwaway786346 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think it really speaks volumes that they only thing you have on Obama is that he spent $70M with Russia to get astronauts to the ISS in an effort to show them that we could be partners (versus them lose a million people in a war with Ukraine).

[deleted]

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#83

Post by kjksf »

aNoob7000 wrote: post #11
asdfaoeu wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like if these funds have an issue with the management structure they should just not buy the shares.

Maybe Nasdaq shouldn't put Space X in the Nasdaq-100 index fund 15 trading days later vs six months.

Nasdaq is a company that exists to make money.

They make money by curating an index i.e. a list of companies and licensing that list to other companies for a fee.

If they pick good, profitable companies with great future, then the business continues. If not, the business fails.

So when you're debating "should/shouldn't", the only perspective is that of Nasdaq, the company, and they only question they "should" be interested in is: is SpaceX a good company with great feature that will make the list better.

The 6 month rule was created by Nasdaq, the company, in order to pick good companies. It's not a religion. It's not a suicide pact.

Therefore when faced with historic IPO (the largest IPO ever) it's a sign of good management that they are not applying the same rules to SpaceX (debuting at $1.75 Trillion) as they do to companies that IPO at $100 million.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#85

Post by jrmg »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #46
jrmg wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need to accuse someone of lying when correcting them.

You need if they are doing it on purpose.

Actually you don’t. Why are you lying about this?

It’s enough to show that they’re wrong - and if you guess wrong that they are lying, and they were just wrong in good faith, you’re much more likely to convince them (and others).

And, from the HN guidelines:

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

…

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#86

Post by randerson »

funimpoded wrote: post #68
kjksf wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk just tied his compensation to having 1 million people on Mars. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... Do explain to me his evil plan of becoming rich by lying about going to Mars and yet agreeing to only get paid when he does go to Mars.

> yet agreeing to only get paid when he does go to Mars. He already owns hundreds of billions of dollars worth of SpaceX. He "gets paid" whether or not these goals are achieved (a million people on mars definitely won't be achieved this century, as the place is fucking awful; one thousand is vanishingly unlikely, one million is flat-out not happening). In fact, hyping the company up ahead of IPO gets him paid, to the…

> a million people on mars definitely won't be achieved this century, as the place is fucking awful

Mars could make for an interesting prison, though. Like the Australia of two centuries ago. If nobody volunteers to live there I wouldn't put it past Musk to meet his target that way.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#87

Post by Ajedi32 »

snek_case wrote: post #34
jmuguy wrote: post #18

I'm more worried about the early inclusion into the Nasdaq 100 index and if other indexes will follow. I don't want my retirement to be passively buying Elon's latest shell game.

Yeah this is pretty shady. The S&P 500 in particular has fairly strict criteria (e.g. 4 consecutive quarters of profitability) and those criteria exist for a reason. They made me more comfortable buying the S&P 500 knowing I'm not buying pre-revenue companies. This is a bad precedent to set just to please Elon.

I'm a bit out of the loop, but has SpaceX not been profitable for the last 4 quarters? I understand they're investing a lot into R&D for Starship but I was under the impression they've been making a killing on Starlink.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#88

Post by blackjack_ »

kjksf wrote: post #48
khriss wrote: post #21

> Elon has control and optimizes for cool shit and going to Mars This trope needs to die. SpaceX has no plans to go to Mars. Elon meanwhile regularly says forward looking stuff to attempt to justify the lofty valuations of his companies. Let's just say there is a ... mixed track record on these proclamations (Full self driving, Hyperloop anyone?)

Musk just tied his compensation to having 1 million people on Mars. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... Do explain to me his evil plan of becoming rich by lying about going to Mars and yet agreeing to only get paid when he does go to Mars.

Hmm, why would a guy who is best known for spectacularly lying to boost his stock price do a spectacular lie? I do wonder… it’s almost like he wants to value the companies like they already achieved these impossible feats, so he can boost his net worth.

But it isn’t like he lied about full self driving for over a decade and then recently admitted none of his cars that people bought for that promise will be able to do that or anything…

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#89

Post by jmuguy »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #87
snek_case wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this is pretty shady. The S&P 500 in particular has fairly strict criteria (e.g. 4 consecutive quarters of profitability) and those criteria exist for a reason. They made me more comfortable buying the S&P 500 knowing I'm not buying pre-revenue companies. This is a bad precedent to set just to please Elon.

I'm a bit out of the loop, but has SpaceX not been profitable for the last 4 quarters? I understand they're investing a lot into R&D for Starship but I was under the impression they've been making a killing on Starlink.

Starlink itself is profitable but the insane valuation they're trying to get for the IPO is based on an assumed continued massive growth of users - and even then I don't think Starlink by itself makes SpaceX a trillion dollar company.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#90

Post by AndrewKemendo »

jaccola wrote: post #61
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yes the classic “but the standard of living has gone up and now people have televisions” argument They are living under a feudal system Any one of the 13,000 could be fired on whim of Musk and even if it was in error they would have months if ever to get restitution. The employees describe him as a “tyrant” that fires people based on ego The fact that people aren’t dying of scurvy is all you’re pointing to? https:…

Maybe you replied to the wrong comment? Peasants under a feudal lord couldn’t work elsewhere. If an engineer was fired from SpaceX they’d have another job before the end of the month… and if they didn’t then they wouldn’t starve to death because of welfare. That seems materially different.

> If an engineer was fired from SpaceX they’d have another job before the end of the month

This is just wrong

Have you not been paying attention to the last five years of layoffs and a decimated technology labor market?

Post reply on HN