Annoying tons of people so some small percent buys your stuff is a shitty thing to do. Their winning more than they lose from being shitty isn't something we have to offer an alternative to.
They're perfectly consistent. An absured valuation isn't evidence of fraud. Exceptional capital formation isn't fraud either. You're conflating overpriced, good at raising money and scam as if they're synonyms. I am curious how the absurd bank price targets will play out in the long-term and if there will be any repercussions but its hard to immediately jump to scam but I realize this is the favorite fan-fic for folks on both sides.
What about Musk gutting government agencies (including the SEC) through DOGE?
Or Musk pushing NASDAQ & co to fast track SpaceX into their indexes, to force institutional investors to buy SpaceX?
Or about Musk & others weakening analyst protection through the current US administration cutting legal failsafes so that now basically every analyst on the market never releases negative share projections?
At which point do we accept that these billionaires push these systems until they crack, "legally", because they buy the people making the laws.
I did not realize that is what we were discussing. Just because I don't like someone (I don't like musk) does not mean I will immediately jump to the harshest classification. I could never get behind the valuations, I don't generally like how he behaves but I also recognize that he historically has done a great job at financial engineering and serving as a hypeman, both can be true at the same time for me.
Sorry if I did not make it clear enough. The original discussion was around SpaceX being a scam. That is what I was referring to. I have no disagreement on other points. As I continue to say both can be true.
Obviously it’s not “perfectly consistent”. There is at least a bit of incongruity in these three, no? A sniff of something off? Also, I’m not conflating anything. I asked you to say more on a couple of things you said in your comment. No need to be absolutist or argumentative about it.
The world is filled with shades of gray. Some folks like yourself take what I consider a very passionate view on these topics. I take a bit more nuanced view. I don’t like Elon, I would never invest in his companies at the current valuation but I also recognize he has built successful businesses, does a great job at financial engineering and overall is generally a really could hype man for this companies. All those things can be true at the same time. I think when folks become too passionate on either side it ruins the argument, I look at how you generally take a rude/attacking stance when all I am saying is I don’t think it’s a scam outright but I find the valuation to be silly.
I'd strongly recommend you read back what I've said and what you've said. The idea that I've presented anything "very passionate" while you've just been "nuanced" is a little silly. Read it. Please.
You asked how the ideas fit together. I explained. Now you’re telling me they must be inconsistent without identifying the contradiction. I typically don’t deal in feelings in these types of topics but I am aware this is a very passionate topic and person for many. That’s just not me. Good luck with your efforts.
For a public company that is certainly true. The valuation is determined by the market as a whole, so there can be no fraud.
But the fraud is in the profitability claims, such as 1T/yr in just a few years, which are clearly completely fabricated nonsense. No company officer should be allowed to make such claims without being removed from office.
>No company officer should be allowed to make such claims without being removed from office.
Any other company officer in a fortune 100 company would be removed from office if they made claims like this. The single reason he isn't is because he owns something like 80 something percent of voting power.
Just so we're clear: You think that the only company selling EVs in the USA for a net profit is a scam?
What do you call Rivian, Lucid, Fisker, Bolinger, Lordstown, Slate, and Aptera?
Slate has been conspicuously silent about orders since the day after launch. Lucid is on the brink of bankruptcy. Fisker has gone bankrupt... twice. Lordstown no longer exists (with assets purchased for pennies on the dollar by their former CEO). Aptera has reorganized more times than I can count, and has been planning to release their product any day now for over 10 years!
Rivian actually lost a lawsuit this year for misleading investors about the potential profitability of their product leading up to IPO. An IPO which raised more money in one fell swoop than all the external funding Tesla had in their entire existence. By your own metric, is Rivian not a bigger scam than Tesla?
By the way, a bad fact for Rivian in that case was that they sexually harassed a female exec, who turned around and revealed (in her own lawsuit against them, just weeks before IPO) that the expected ASP of the R1 would be less than the production cost. Oops.
And, somehow, Tesla is the problem. Yea, that makes sense.
Definitely not and I think those types of opinions erode any rational discussion. It’s part of the problem with these discussions. There are extreme views that take a position that is not defendable but follow the hive mind for whatever side they are on.
I like to think in shades of gray and I am somewhere in the middle. Tesla? Amazing product, crazy valuation. SpaceX, some of the underlying products are indeed very valuable but the valuation is again out of this world, no pun intended. The market can stay irrational a lot longer than I can stay solvent. Would never take a short against Elon but I also would never invest into his businesses.
You’re moving the goal post in your argument. First it’s being good at raising money is a scam. Now you are pointing out his incredibly foolish claims. No disagreement, it’s an absurd statement. I don’t know if it classifies as fraud.
The term scam is definitely inflammatory, but I think the sentiment is fair considering the unprecedented and extreme overvaluation and the unrealistic justification for it. It's even worse when you consider Elon's consistent track record of over-promising and under-delivering. Taken together with Elon's role in gutting regulations and coordinating to change listing rules, it's totally fair to characterize what's going on as intentional dishonesty for profit - i.e. a scam.
It's a scam only if you think the stock market in general is a scam. Remember, SpaceX is completely globally dominant in its industries (launch technology and orbital telecom)
I don't understand what kind of media someone has to consume to not understand that SpaceX does completely globally dominate launch services. Like, it's not even close.
I have no opinion on whether other companies might catch up to them (either tomorrow or 10 years from now), but your quote is a completely accurate statement about the world as it exists today.
Launch service makes billions in losses and the Chinese have now the same technology. The only cash cow they have is Starlink.
If you read the IPO prospectus, none of theses things is were the money is supposed to be earned in the future. The money comes from the 3rd pillar, AI. Again AI is the biggest loss maker they have.
I would not invest in their launch services, nor in their AI. But I would invest in StarLink if they spun it off and if it were decently priced.
Yes, I think Musk has proven the stock market is a scam. If it wasn’t, the SEC would have thrown him in prison years ago for his regular violations of law in Tesla earnings calls.
I had the same thought, glad someone else noticed this.
Comparing AI adoption to the Tower of Babel is a central theme to Magnifica Humanitas, but written by someone with a much deeper understanding of the Biblical narrative.
Nah, you can look at my GH profile, where I link to some open stuff, but I’m working on apps for a specialized demographic, right now, that don’t benefit from being HN hugged.
> eacher uses AI, creates lesson plan -> AI creates assignments -> Teacher gives assignments to students |
Up to this point, it's actually completely fine. LLMs do an excellent job up to here.
> | Teacher grades with AI -> Principal uses AI to monitor teachers progress.
Again, this is probably mostly fine. Assuming they are taking it seriously, this is also fine.
> Students use AI to do assignment
This is singularly the section of the loop that AI has no place in. The ENTIRE point of the education system is for the students to learn how to use their brains to accomplish tasks.
AI shouldn't really be needed for every lesson plan as:
* Lessons can have a generic core to base off, like learning objectives, content, methods, vocab, tools, experiments, etc.
* Routines are important for kids, so the same set of learning methods, activities are familiar and don't need to be taught themselves - there is no need (indeed it is detrimental) to have new activities each class.
* The teacher should know their class better than AI for customisation (for now, until every student gets monitored for everything); a lot of customisation from systematic marking, etc, can exist without AI and simply by being planned and using deterministic tools.
AI can spice things up, for sure. But using AI systematically for lesson planning suggests -
A. The teacher doesn't have access to what should be a solved problem: tens of thousands of teachers repeating the same lesson plan from scratch - even with AI - across the country is not efficient.
B. The teacher doens't have planning time or skills in order to implement a systematic course plan, formative assessment and on-going improvement system.
Using AI to rush or bootstrap A or B suggests their problem is systematic and that AI will not solve this. In programming lingo, AI use hides further accumulation of technical debt.
I feel like in the context of AI in education, "wisdom through dogma" still doesn't capture it. It's not even wisdom nor dogma, but something in the form of wisdom developed through something in the form of dogma. "Wisdom" implies you actually believe it and embody it, but students don't believe it or embody it as much as just pass it along to finish the assignment. "Dogma" implies there's a coherent logic of accepted doctrine, but the output is more a stretched and morphed version of the most generalized doctrine imaginable.
In my country, education is the basic minimum for any social status. Dropping before the high school diploma is basically saying that you're going to be mediocre for your whole life. Anyone will try to get the basic down otherwise that means being ridiculed for your whole life basically.
SECTION 1. The General Laws are hereby amended by inserting after chapter 93L the following chapter:-
Chapter 93M. Massachusetts Data Privacy Act
Section 1. As used in this chapter, the following words shall have the following meanings unless the context otherwise requires:
...
“Sale of personal data”, the transfer of personal data in exchange for monetary or other valuable consideration by the controller to a third party; provided, however, that “sale of personal data” shall not include: (i) the disclosure of personal data to a processor that processes the personal data on behalf of the controller if limited to the purposes of the processing; (ii) the disclosure of personal data to a third party for purposes of providing a product or service affirmatively requested by the consumer; (iii) the disclosure or transfer of personal data to an affiliate of the controller; (iv) the disclosure of personal data with the consumer’s affirmative consent, where the consumer affirmatively directs the controller to disclose the personal data or intentionally uses the controller to interact with a third party; (v) the disclosure or transfer of personal data to a third party as an asset that is part of a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy or other transaction or a proposed merger, acquisition, bankruptcy or other transaction, in which the third party assumes control of all or part of the controller’s assets; or (vi) the disclosure of personal data that the consumer: (A) intentionally made available to the general public via a channel of mass media; and (B) did not restrict to a specific audience.
