Two more years guys, just give him two more years, a few more billion, a bit more political power and I promise he'll give you your fancy self driving toy. (Repeat from 2012 ad infinitum)
the problem is that TSLA (the company) is pivoting hard to humanoid robots, which is a relatively easier problem, perfectly big market and Musk is a terrific salesguy. Medium/long term, humanoid robots are commodity but so were electric cars and TSLA (the stock) rode that to glory.
Eh? _Useful_ humanoid robots are if anything considerably harder. Tech demos are easier, granted; humanoid robot tech demos date back to the 80s or so.
> Two more years guys, just give him two more years, a few more billion, a bit more political power and I promise he'll give you your fancy self driving toy. (Repeat from 2012 ad infinitum)
The trillion dollar pay package will make it happen, that's what was missing.
If it's not your money does it matter? I don't think it's fair to say he doesn't deliver anything e.g. he did cars, rockets, and now AI (the rate X are building out training capacity is genuinely astonishing) at the same time.
I think the point is that if it's his money he's pissing away, then any other projects the money would have been spent on would have been equally dubious in any case. He's not going to, all of a sudden, become wise simply because he doesn't spend money on what he's spending money on.
Did we give him wayyy too much free money via subsidies? Yes. But that was our mistake. And if we hadn't given it to him, we would have given it to some other scam artists somewhere or other. So even in the case of the counterfactual, we could expect a similar outcome. Just different scumbags.
What kind of absurd argument is that? Like any company that doesn't serve 100% of people on the planet is by definition not a success? That's the dumbest fucking argument I have ever heard and I hope you are not actually series about that.
Because Apple doesn't serve 100% of the population either, so clearly Apple is not successful. By your logic right?
And its not even true. People that live in big cities do a thing called 'flying' between big cities quite often. And Starlink is already starting to be dominant in the airline market, meaning all those city people, when they fly use Starlink.
And Starlink is used in agriculture and mining, and shipping. So all those city people do actually use things that have Starlink in the supply chain.
Common man, its fine to hate Musk, but at some point reality is a thing.
The world was never the same after Windows 95 or the iPhone, or Google search Amazon or Facebook. Paradigm shifts they were
Musk companies are essentially reinventing the wheel for no reason whatsoever (or for political purposes) chasing what can be defined at best extremely marginal quality of life improvement for the general population.
Uber and the food delivery apps are much more consequential but they are not as performative as a rocket landing on its butt, so easily amused people are not as enthusiastic (even though they are on the aforementioned food delivery apps 3+ times per day)
> > Common man, its fine to hate Musk, but at some point reality is a thing.
Reality implies that an individual be present and having knowledge of where their quality of life comes from . If you disappeared Musk companies the world will go on without a single trouble. Disappear Microsoft or Apple or Aramco or Google and you'll have Civil War within a week. Maybe you should get a dose of reality, for the stock market is not it, however pleasant the gainz might be.
Ok so anything that doesn't fundamentally reshape the world is not a 'success'.
I never argued that Starlink is as important as the IPhone. That's just a strawman that you set up.
You are just fundamentally arguing in bad faith.
> Musk companies are essentially reinventing the wheel
Even if this was true, and it isn't, its just another argument in bad faith. The wheel has been reinvented many times and often rather successfully by many different companies.
> Uber and the food delivery apps are much more consequential
Again, I have no fucking idea what your argument is. We were not arguing about what is more successful. This is again just a strawman.
But outside of that, if Uber and food delivery apps didn't exist there are 100s of companies who could reproduce them in just a couple of month. And in fact there are likely 100s of smaller competitors, and one of them would grow to be Uber or Doordash. If Uber wasn't there Lyft could replace it just fine. Without Doordash, Delivery Hero or Uber Eats would take over in no time.
This is not the case with SpaceX, if SpaceX disappeared it would take 10-20+ years for any other company to replace it, likely longer. Maybe a combination of companies could do it shorter. Boeing ever finished Starliner. If Amazon investing heavenly into Kupiter. And if BlueOrigin continues to burn money to invest into new Glenn, then maybe in 10 years we might have SpaceX level of capability back.
The facts are this, if SpaceX collapsed tomorrow, there is a 100% chance that the government would step in and save it. Its absolute fundamentally critical to US military and civilians space. And thanks to Starshields its fundamentally critical to the whole navy and airforce.
If however Uber collapsed tomorrow, in couple of month nobody would be talking about it anymore except one of those 'Bankroupt - The Rise and Fall of Uber Story' youtube videos.
> If you
Literally just more strawman stuff that has literally nothing to do what so ever with my original argument.
The position you seem to be outlining here is that any company that is not as big and successful as Microsoft, Apple or Google, 3 of the largest companies in the planet, then you can not be considered a 'success'. Again, this is fundamentally fucking stupid as by that definition most companies on the planet that exists are not successful.
And only a person with severe Musk reality distortion would try to passionately make the argument that SpaceX isn't a success. In fact nobody would spend time even typing out such a dumb argument if it wasn't for Musk being CEO.
idk man, I'm not in the matrix deep enough to give a shit about "building out training capacity" of LLMs, I think there are way more important topics like not destroying the fabric of our society and political systems, but idk, I guess I'm just a far left antifa maniac terrorist or something
Easy problem to solve. We just need to train an AI image classifier with highly annotated images of every single possible combination of road debris in every single country in the entire world. Shouldn't take longer than a month, right team? /s
