Is Elon still as evil after today?

[Z-Man]

A lot of people are brainwashed, I am Not one of them. I'm different in so many ways from the idiots. Most people are just puppets and report and see exactly what the media feeds them, good or bad and don't question it.

Heh, assuming you would be spewing this prejudiced nonsense because you follow people on Twitter that feed you ten lies before a single truth can get to you was the charitable explanation If those are your own thoughts, that kinda makes it worse.

Tesla is in a very strong position and does not need them.

Well, we had it about falling sales numbers in Europe, you blamed it on the model refresh going on. That should be done now, right? So any temporary effect should have worn off? With overcompensation, even, as the people waiting for the refresh will have gotten it by now? Have you checked recently how thing are going?
And how are cybertruck sales? Compared to expectations?

where are the other companies landing boosters over 30 times?

No doubt, a pioneering achievement.

even if he didn't do actual engineering at the companies, he knows how to lead a team of people to do those things, if he didn't they would just run away and work for another company, yet somehow he can maintain a team of the top talent. is the top talent all brainwashed?

Not brainwashed, but maybe they want to work in their dream job no matter what, and their dream job happens to be designing and building rockets. Look at the game industry. People there accept horrible bosses and working conditions just to follow their passion. And nobody would tell you, at least not until after they quit or got fired. Just saying, "company is doing great work, ergo boss must be a great person" is not watertight logic.

I'll retire and enjoy life well before I am 60, probably much sooner with this new compensation plan.

Ok, you have to explain this to the total rube that I am. You're talking about the roughly 1 trillion $ worth of shares to be awarded to Musk? For leading a company with an accumulated revenue (not profit!) of 100 billion so far? How is giving Musk more money going to help YOUR retirement?
(I'm assuming your logic is that in order to get the reward, stock value needs to rise, and you'll profit from that, but wouldn't you profit more from the same rise WITHOUT this gluttonous compensation plan? And wouldn't Musk himself profit enough?)

You guys are the ones brainwashed thinking If i side with Trump I side with everything he's doing, which could not be further from the truth.

Ok, which things Trump did or is doing do you disagree with? I'm curious whether any of the "fast lane to authoritarianism" things are on there. And no pussyfooting, "Yeah so he had 11 people on a boat killed in violation of international law, but those were likely criminals, that may make it OK" counts as agreement.

Oh, victim blaming (or rather its side dish, perpetrator justification) and moving the goal post in one sentence.

Apparently the couple ended up getting arrested that reported her.

Heh, I failed to mention that filming strangers, especially underage, without their consent and publishing the video online without any anonymization is very icky. I don't know their local laws, but around here, it would be illegal. Also, we don't know what happened before, and apparently there is surveillance footage the police could analyze. I trust the police were doing the right thing.

But seriously if criminal activity is so high, that a 12 year old girl(any race, I really don't care) feels a need to carry weapons, something is wrong with that area, enforcing laws is obviously not happening.

We've been there before. Crime rates are trending down everywhere you care about. And for the next five times you're going to bring this up:
Crime rates are trending down.
Crime rates are trending down.
Crime rates are trending down.
Crime rates are trending down.
Crime rates are trending down.
There, that should be enough.
(nota bene: rapes are special and hard to analyze. They have been historically underreported, because conviction rates are low, so why bother? They are well beyond the scope of armchair analysis, and my chair does not even have armrests.)

There are not a lot of laws i agree with, but protecting children is something I can agree with.

You're right! You failed to say what should be done, and I don't want to assume you want to put all Muslims into gulags, so let's work it out together. I don't have any usable UK or US data, so let's go with Germany. Google translate is pretty useless on my sources, sadly.
So, let's concentrate on deaths. Simple reason, other harms are hard to compare, I don't want to argue how many broken bones are equivalent to one rape. Please don't let my language fool you into thinking I find any of this funny.
First stop is the causes of death database: Long frigging url
It's Age 1-14, divided between boys and girls. Most rows are medical conditons. In the relevant timeframe (2023), there were a total of 1244 deaths. Row TDU-17 is all of the deaths not related to medical conditions, summing to 191 cases. That was easy! Most kids, 1053, die of medical conditions. The first thing to do there is to have a non-crappy health care system (check for Europe). The next thing to do is research, research and more research. I assume you're putting "cut funds for cancer research" on your disagreement list above?

Ok, on to the smaller fish. TDU-171 are accidents of all kinds, with a sum of 143 cases. (Oh yeah, it took me a while to get this: The stats are hierarchical. All TDU-171 cases are included in TDU-17, and all TDU-1714 cases are included in TDU-171). What can we do about those? TDU-1711 are traffic accidents, TDU-1712 falls, TDU-1713 drowning and TDU-1714 is fire. they sum up to 101, leaving 42 unknown accidents. We have been taught in first aid class that most accidents happen at home, and that would include fire and many falls, also drowning in the bathtub... I suppose better education and awareness for parents of the specific household dangers for smaller kids would help there? Like keeping kids out of the kitchen until they have learned that you can't see whether a surface is hot, or the pot of water you are pulling off the stove contains boiling water? Drowning is also an issue. Parents need to be aware that real drowning is silent. Kids just slip under water. There is no splashing and certainly no screaming, a drowning person does not have the air for that. I am not accusing parents who have something horrible happen to their kids at home of of negiligence, supidity and carelessness. But yeah, I bet if we try and work together, we can reduce that number.

The next biggest chunk is TDU-1711, traffic accidents. 40 cases. Let's make this quick by letting me offer a solution to lower those that is aligned with my ideologies: Ban all cars. I'm willing to negotiate that down to banning cars from cities. Fine. Or actually enforced speed limits. Helsinki proves that works. The city of Belin is in the process of REMOVING speed limits. Yay.

TDU-172 is suicides. 22 total, 10 boys and 12 girls. I think you also need to consider TDU-05, I think suicides linked to clinical depression would fall under that category, adding up to 15 more. You'll notice that's one of the few rows where girls fare worse than boys, if slightly. There is no simple solution threre. Reminding all kids that kindness is a virtue would be my best offer.

TDU-172 is assault. 23 total. The sad truth there is, in most cases, the guilty party is a parent or caregiver. In 2022, including kids below 1 year which were left out before, there were 25 cases of that: https://ifh-forschungsverbund-tu--dortm ... r_pto=wapp
The good news is, that number is already going down. So whatever is being done (better help for families in need, taking kids out of families that are unsafe, I assume) is working.
(For completeness, These guys give even higher numbers for infanticides, but don't link to their data source. And note that their graph has the time axis reversed, making it look like the number of cases is rising, while the opposite is true. Apply salt as needed.)
I checked with the other stats page, they list a total of 25 assault killings in 2022 of all kids below 15. Now those are different sources and might count cases differently, leaving some room for kids murdered by strangers. But not a lot.

Anyway, with kids death solved, I take the rest of the day off.

Word: My match for tech billionaires and the dystopia they are aiming for would be:
Thiel: Clearly 1984, though the government there is quite open about the constant surveillance and frames it as a good thing. Well, he'll get there once he no longer thinks he needs to hide.
Zuckerberg: Everyone staring at their screens instead of reading books. Fahrenheit 451.
Bezos: Probably dreams of his company becoming so powerful that he effectively owns the people working for it. Could be any cyberpunky thing, but since we were talking about it, Alien fits (I'm not yet caught up, so the eye things haven't done much yet).
Musk: Builds Johnny Cabs, Brain inplants and he wants to rule Mars. Total Recall, the Schwarzenegger version.

[sinewav]

So please explain to me how I am brainwashed?

We get it, you want to fellate Elon Musk. But you still believe a bunch of nonsense. For instance, you talk about "higher inflation. making our money more and more worthless, to the point were we've had to remove the penny." but people have talked about getting rid of the penny since I was a little kid, and I was born in the early 70s. It has nothing to do with Biden and inflation. You have this thought about pennies in your head because you are brainwashed (or stupid?).

And this unhinged conspiracy nonsense about Democrats wanting people to go to counselors, who they somehow control, so that voters will elect the Democratic Party? What in the absolute f*ck are you on about? I think maybe you need counseling. Speaking of, you are accidentally right that "counselling sessions have increase over the last decade or so." But because you are brainwashed you think this is some political conspiracy and not a global trend as more people begin to understand and accept that mental health IS part of healthcare. Don't believe the UN and the WHO? Here is what Grok has to say about the importance of mental health:

"Mental health care is critically important for overall well-being, as it addresses emotional, psychological, and social health, which are foundational to how we think, feel, and function in daily life. Poor mental health can impair relationships, work, physical health, and quality of life, while untreated conditions like depression, anxiety, or trauma can lead to severe outcomes, including substance abuse, self-harm, or suicide. The CDC notes that over 1 in 5 adults in the U.S. live with a mental illness, with 1 in 25 experiencing a serious condition like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Globally, the WHO estimates a 13% rise in mental health conditions from 2010 to 2020, with 1 in 8 people affected by 2022.

Effective mental health care—through therapy, medication, support systems, or lifestyle changes—can reduce symptoms, improve coping skills, and prevent escalation. It also reduces stigma, encouraging people to seek help. Access remains a challenge; for example, 60% of U.S. adults with mental illness didn’t receive treatment in the past year due to cost, availability, or stigma. Prioritizing mental health care is essential for individuals and society, as it boosts productivity, reduces healthcare costs (e.g., untreated depression adds $489 billion annually to U.S. healthcare expenses), and fosters resilience. Neglecting it risks personal suffering and broader societal impacts, like increased homelessness or incarceration rates among those with untreated conditions."

Jesus Christ, kyle, do you actually question what you think, ever?

[Word]

Word: My match for tech billionaires and the dystopia they are aiming for would be:
Thiel: Clearly 1984, though the government there is quite open about the constant surveillance and frames it as a good thing. Well, he'll get there once he no longer thinks he needs to hide.
Zuckerberg: Everyone staring at their screens instead of reading books. Fahrenheit 451.
Bezos: Probably dreams of his company becoming so powerful that he effectively owns the people working for it. Could be any cyberpunky thing, but since we were talking about it, Alien fits (I'm not yet caught up, so the eye things haven't done much yet).
Musk: Builds Johnny Cabs, Brain inplants and he wants to rule Mars. Total Recall, the Schwarzenegger version.

That's pretty clever, especially the "Total Recall" bit! I thought "Alien" suffices because in that dystopia there are only a few mega-corporations left that divide everything up between themselves and they are effectively the acting government in their respective territory. Recently watched some debate youtuber's take on a Jubilee debate with a white surpremacist and that was a bit horrifying. No surprises there and don't bother if you have better things to do but boy is this guy dumb. I hope this helps guys like kyle to figure out where to draw the line and why it matters who he is aligning himself with. Here's the full thing if you prefer that.

[Z-Man]

I thought "Alien" suffices because in that dystopia there are only a few mega-corporations left that divide everything up between themselves and they are effectively the acting government in their respective territory.

I hadn't even picked up on there being more than one corporation... probably because I haven't consumed any side media. As far as I was aware, the movies all are WY operations, and they are just calling it "the company" most of the time. But yes. It seems like nation states either no longer exist or are irrelevant, the corporations have taken over their role. There seem to be some laws, like you can't just openly send your employees to get infected by some alien parasites, and contracts are binding. In a way, it even goes full circle from hyper-capitalism to communism (specifically, the real version people got, heck not the version where the people own the means of production), because if there are only a handful of corporations, that's centrally planned economics at the territory level. And isn't that supposed to be worse than more, smaller, companies competing? Maybe they solved that by having lots of sub-companies that internally compete. I don't think they have really nailed any of that down. They don't even have consistent gestation times of implanted xenomorphs across movies.

Recently watched some debate youtuber's take on a Jubilee debate with a white surpremacist and that was a bit horrifying.

Yep. The first 45 seconds of that are already worth it. Free speech is only promoted until they are in power. That whole thing was hard to avoid seeing pop up for a bit

Here's the full thing if you prefer that.

Here is a much shorter version of essentially the same thing.

[kyle]

Tesla is in a very strong position and does not need them.

Well, we had it about falling sales numbers in Europe, you blamed it on the model refresh going on. That should be done now, right? So any temporary effect should have worn off? With overcompensation, even, as the people waiting for the refresh will have gotten it by now? Have you checked recently how thing are going?
And how are cybertruck sales? Compared to expectations?

The Cybertruck was supposed to be a lower price and have more range, everyone who has one loves it, but it's too much of a premium expense in the economy we have. I was one of those pre-orders, partly because It was supposed to be a 6 seater, and cost around the same as a model Y, I ended up getting the new Y instead. I still plan to get a Cybertruck in the next few years.

even if he didn't do actual engineering at the companies, he knows how to lead a team of people to do those things, if he didn't they would just run away and work for another company, yet somehow he can maintain a team of the top talent. is the top talent all brainwashed?

Not brainwashed, but maybe they want to work in their dream job no matter what, and their dream job happens to be designing and building rockets. Look at the game industry. People there accept horrible bosses and working conditions just to follow their passion. And nobody would tell you, at least not until after they quit or got fired. Just saying, "company is doing great work, ergo boss must be a great person" is not watertight logic.

It doesn't work that way, Tell me a major company, that succeeded without having a great visionary for a CEO, that lead it to massive growth and success?

I'll retire and enjoy life well before I am 60, probably much sooner with this new compensation plan.

Ok, you have to explain this to the total rube that I am. You're talking about the roughly 1 trillion $ worth of shares to be awarded to Musk? For leading a company with an accumulated revenue (not profit!) of 100 billion so far? How is giving Musk more money going to help YOUR retirement?
(I'm assuming your logic is that in order to get the reward, stock value needs to rise, and you'll profit from that, but wouldn't you profit more from the same rise WITHOUT this gluttonous compensation plan? And wouldn't Musk himself profit enough?)

We are not voting to give Elon more money without him providing results. He must meet multiple milestones and stock price levels in order to cash in on any of the pay. for him to get 1/12 of it the stock price has to raise about 70% and he has to meet one of the demanding targets. All in all if he meets them all the stock has to go from about 1.2 trillion market cap, to 8.5 trillion market cap, so basically the stock must go up for him to be paid, therefore if my stock should go up nicely also.

You guys are the ones brainwashed thinking If i side with Trump I side with everything he's doing, which could not be further from the truth.

Ok, which things Trump did or is doing do you disagree with? I'm curious whether any of the "fast lane to authoritarianism" things are on there.

The problem with what you asked, is I like some of the direction that he is going, but I agree most is too far. Like I like criminals actually getting arrested and placed in jail, I like deportations, to an extent, he's apparently taking many that have been here for multiple years working and have no criminal history, that I don't like, I think at that point even though they did break the laws, they have proven to be a functional part of this economy, and should be given some way towards citizenship, nothing expatiated, but at least a path, without self deporting and coming back.

I don't mind immigrants, if they came here legally, the more we cater to "asylum seekers" the more "asylum seekers" we have that are likely seeking Asylum because on crimes they did in other countries that they are ready to commit here. Good people with great morals as "asylum seekers" I have no problem with, but that's not what was happening.

But seriously if criminal activity is so high, that a 12 year old girl(any race, I really don't care) feels a need to carry weapons, something is wrong with that area, enforcing laws is obviously not happening.

We've been there before. Crime rates are trending down everywhere you care about. And for the next five times you're going to bring this up:
Crime rates are trending down.
Crime rates are trending down.
Crime rates are trending down.
Crime rates are trending down.
Crime rates are trending down.

Just this week an innocent Ukrainian immigrant slaughtered on a train for potentially for being White, buy someone let out of Jail by a judge that did not even pass her bar exam. Charlie Kirk assassinated at an event he was holding in front of his wife and kids.

That's all I'm going to answer for now, maybe more later
But America really has work it needs to do, both parties are in ways polar opposites, they take their stances too extreme, and too far from what Americans actually want. I want a safe nation, yes, yes the "Crime rates are trending down." but they can do better.

[Word]

You have 340 million people in the US and you point to two recent killings that have just about nothing to do with each other* to demand structural changes that benefit white people. One murderer is a black guy with schizophrenia. The Charlie Kirk assassin is <misinformation and dependant stuff snippted>. As for white people killing black people, or men killing women, I'm not so sure if these acts can nearly always be considered conscious collective actions by a large percentage of white men or just go to show how the world currently works, but where is your outrage and demand for changes there? Person A kills Person B and first thing you do is construct a large conspiracy around it while ignoring the systemic crap that has been going on forever, countless times, and is backed up by any half-serious daily newspaper issue ever. And worse, to find solutions for many of the underlying issues you'd just have to take a look at how other countries dealt with the same problem. Everything's completely out in the open.

Here is a much shorter version of essentially the same thing.

That parody is spot-on. You can't really analyze a debate when the discussion topic itself is absurd.

* other than both killings were caught on video, get widely shared around the same time, not too long after the Luigi stuff, so people radicalize themselves even further. That's the only connection and it's big enough.

[sinewav]

It doesn't work that way, Tell me a major company, that succeeded without having a great visionary for a CEO, that lead it to massive growth and success?

Your world is too small. Zildjian has a near monopoly on cymbals and all their competition is recent and not nearly as successful. I'm pretty sure no one cares how "visionary" the CEOs of General Electric, Nestle, and Proctor & Gamble are. And then there are companies like Aldi that don't really have a CEO. What are you even talking about, kyle?

...both parties are in ways polar opposites, they take their stances too extreme, and too far from what Americans actually want.

Yeah, real EXTREME! Both argue which capitalists should extract every penny out of the public. What Americans really want is something closer to socialism but they don't know what socialism is because of decades of capitalist propaganda.

[Z-Man]

The Cybertruck was supposed to be a lower price and have more range

Overpromised and underdelivered, you say? Not surprised.

I still plan to get a Cybertruck in the next few years.

Why go for something that needs more energy and space, if the Y serves you well? I probably just don't get car people.

It doesn't work that way, Tell me a major company, that succeeded without having a great visionary for a CEO, that lead it to massive growth and success?

You may have misunderstood me. With "Great person" I mean morally, ethically great. Does not treat their workforce like shit, specifically. Take Uber, DoorDash, Glovo, Deliveroo and all the other gig economy companies. They expanded like crazy precisely BECAUSE their business model is that they treat their workforce like shit.

And then there are companies like Aldi that don't really have a CEO.

That would be because both Aldi branches are privately owned and don't have to play by the rules of the stock market. They do have bosses, they just don't have to make public appearances to keep stakeholders happy. And had founders, two brothers Albrecht, who expanded the empire from a small store to a nationwide chain, later split. And while I would not classify them as visionary in any inspiring sense, they apparently were in the business sense. Cut cost wherever you can, sell as cheap as you can, eliminate unprofitable goods from the stores. Nowadays, of course, not much vision is needed to run those companies.
I think this is a pattern you'll find elsewhere. Passionate founders with the right ideas at the right time and the opportunities to turn them into reality, rapid expansion, and then a boring three hundred years of continued existence as a big business fish. Because once you are big, it's relatively easy to stay big.
Take Apple today. Tim Cook is also not really a visionary. But he is a capable business leader, and Apple manages to get a new phone model out every year, simultaneously worldwide, without stock shortages.
This is, of course, the right time to remind everyone that Musk bought the title of "Founder" at Tesla. (SpaceX is his baby, no shade there.)

(I'm assuming your logic is that in order to get the reward, stock value needs to rise, and you'll profit from that, but wouldn't you profit more from the same rise WITHOUT this gluttonous compensation plan? And wouldn't Musk himself profit enough?)

We are not voting to give Elon more money without him providing results. He must meet multiple milestones and stock price levels in order to cash in on any of the pay. for him to get 1/12 of it the stock price has to raise about 70% and he has to meet one of the demanding targets. All in all if he meets them all the stock has to go from about 1.2 trillion market cap, to 8.5 trillion market cap, so basically the stock must go up for him to be paid, therefore if my stock should go up nicely also.

Yeah, that's what I figured the logic would be. But... if stock raises 70%, Musk's present share would also be worth 70% more, so he would already gain umty hundred billions (you know the numbers better than me). Should that not already be enough motivation? A trillion is, like, world hunger ending money. And it's money coming, essentially, out of your pocket.
(All that noting that to Musk, Tesla stocks are on-paper wealth. He can't sell them all at once, nobody would be rich enough to buy them. He also can't sell them at medium speed, because he would have to disclose that, I think, and it would probably be interpreted as a bad sign and risk tanking the price. I think he could sell them very slowly. Or just hold on to them and use them as securities for credits, like is custom.)

Crime rates are trending down.

Just this week an innocent Ukrainian immigrant slaughtered on a train for potentially for being White, buy someone let out of Jail by a judge that did not even pass her bar exam. Charlie Kirk assassinated at an event he was holding in front of his wife and kids.

Horrible individual cases, ideed. But "trending down" does not mean "hit zero". You have a long way to come down from as far as homicides are concerned. You're right, you could do better. I don't know how. Locking more people up for smaller crimes, because the next thing they do might be a murder, can not be part of the solution. You already have an exremely high number of people in prisons. Of course, they may be the wrong ones.

(Also, I mean long term trends. For medium term trends, I forgot there was, and still is, a probably Covid related, significant bump.)

[kyle]

...For instance, you talk about "higher inflation. making our money more and more worthless, to the point were we've had to remove the penny." but people have talked about getting rid of the penny since I was a little kid, and I was born in the early 70s. It has nothing to do with Biden and inflation.

But they actually did stop penny production, It's not just Biden, its more the last few decades, the Fed can only do so much to try to keep inflation in line with target, but why the fed could not stop the massive inflation post covid was because Biden spent much more money bailing us out of covid, he should not have sent the last stimulus check in an already booming economy, I actually am not sure I agree with all of Trumps stimulus money either, but I worked the full time of covid, so I really don't know how much others were struggling

I think maybe you need counseling.

Hell no!

"Mental health care is critically important for overall well-being, as it addresses emotional, psychological, and social health, which are foundational to how we think, feel, and function in daily life.

Sorry about my statement, I agree some people do need counseling, but I still think it's a broken system, it's hard for me to explain it any better, as I try to tip toe around certain things in here. So yes there are some it's helpful for, but I think it's over-prescribed just like a lot of the pills too.

... CEO. What are you even talking about, kyle?

Take Apple today. Tim Cook is also not really a visionary. But he is a capable business leader, and Apple manages to get a new phone model out every year, simultaneously worldwide, without stock shortages.

Founders of must of those companies did amazing things, now the new CEO's are just riding in what the past set them up for, I would argue that Apple really has not done anything revolutionary to move the needle since Jobs, sure the stock goes up because fanboys buy it, but it's arguable not anything special anymore.

Cybetruck

Overpromised and underdelivered, you say? Not surprised.

Why go for something that needs more energy and space, if the Y serves you well? I probably just don't get car people.

There was a massive inflationary event that occurred between the announcement and production, that delayed production, and sacrificed the cost. Why go with a Cybertruck, I don't plan to drive it often, but I have an ICE truck, I do truck things sometimes, and I hate to drive, but it's cheaper to buy it with vehicle to grid, as backup power for my house than to buy powerwalls

This is, of course, the right time to remind everyone that Musk bought the title of "Founder" at Tesla.

The actual founder/CEO was a deadbeat that just wanted to collect money and not actually make products or money, he was a scammer like Milton. Elon pumped money into it and wanted ROI.

Yeah, that's what I figured the logic would be. But... if stock raises 70%, Musk's present share would also be worth 70% more, so he would already gain umty hundred billions (you know the numbers better than me). Should that not already be enough motivation? A trillion is, like, world hunger ending money. And it's money coming, essentially, out of your pocket.
(All that noting that to Musk, Tesla stocks are on-paper wealth. He can't sell them all at once, nobody would be rich enough to buy them. He also can't sell them at medium speed, because he would have to disclose that, I think, and it would probably be interpreted as a bad sign and risk tanking the price. I think he could sell them very slowly. Or just hold on to them and use them as securities for credits, like is custom.)

Spot on at the end, he just wants 25% voting control, he doesn't care about the money he has in it, my guess is he actually never ends up selling it. unfortunate rules and regulations on the stock exchange make it virtually impossible to do things like what Google did, (you know how it split into GOOG and GOOGL where one have voting power and the other doesn't. The company was never structured that way and rules prohibit, devaluing existing shareholders. so really to grant him 25% voting we are stuck with a compensation plan like this.




As for the murders I brought up, Yes both were different, the first on the subway, From my understanding the guy that killer her was in Jail for murder or something pretty serious and was let out, and had been in jail over 12 times. and to say he has schizophrenia is that deep empathy for the person of intrest, that when it was a child I was accused of having too much empathy for but now that's it's a grown man, it's like a nice way to write it off. If he's proven more than 12 times he can't handle society, and gets locked, maybe there is a special place for him other than jail, but he should not be free to walk amongst us.

As for Charlie Kirk, he was assassinated because of political warfare, It's become way to common, as we've seen in the threads here, if you are not part of us, then you are the most extreme of the other side, because that puts the cross-hairs on that person as being someone bad, someone that must get taken out. and I'm not saying republicans are at all clean on this either. It's happened in the past the other way around, when Obama was President, Someone attempted to assassinate a predominate democrat, Gabby Giffords. But that kind of Extremist name blaming, is what sets up other extremists, to act.

If the political parties of today cannot take ownership for their vocal actions against others it's time to Drain them from the swamp and start clean, that's why I support Elon creating a new political party. because republics and democrats both suck. Socialism is not the answer though, we need different levels of wealth for a functioning society, we need competition, to enable innovation. With that said, the stuff Elon is working on at Tesla will likely break the capitalist economy, if executed well, and could turn us into a more socialist economy with universal income. It's kind of hard to imagine what we will become, if AGI is achieved, and we can have humanoid robots replacing most humans jobs today.

[sinewav]

Socialism is not the answer though, we need different levels of wealth for a functioning society, we need competition, to enable innovation.

You don't even know what socialism is. It's clear you have a completely warped idea of reality due to all the capitalist propaganda you read. Socialism can't remove inequality, only reduce it to sane levels (also I'm against most forms of socialism, are you surprised there are many kinds?). And you don't need competition for innovation, you need inspiration and cooperation.

[Z-Man]

... CEO. What are you even talking about, kyle?

Take Apple today. Tim Cook is also not really a visionary. But he is a capable business leader, and Apple manages to get a new phone model out every year, simultaneously worldwide, without stock shortages.

Founders of must of those companies did amazing things, now the new CEO's are just riding in what the past set them up for, I would argue that Apple really has not done anything revolutionary to move the needle since Jobs, sure the stock goes up because fanboys buy it, but it's arguable not anything special anymore.

Well, there is the Apple Watch, which is very successful (not at first, but in later iterations) and has demonstrably saved lives. I'm absolutely not a smartwatch guy, so I could not tell you. But with the usual caveat that you have to fully buy into the Apple ecosystem, it's apparently very good? And the Vision Pro, which was not a huge sales success, it wasn't designed to be one, more of a test balloon. But it was VISIONary. Haha. Geddit?

Cybetruck

Overpromised and underdelivered, you say? Not surprised.

Why go for something that needs more energy and space, if the Y serves you well? I probably just don't get car people.

There was a massive inflationary event that occurred between the announcement and production, that delayed production, and sacrificed the cost.

That was like, a total of 10% inflation? Causing a 20x gap between expectations and result? Yeah, that alone can't be it.

Why go with a Cybertruck, I don't plan to drive it often, but I have an ICE truck, I do truck things sometimes, and I hate to drive, but it's cheaper to buy it with vehicle to grid, as backup power for my house than to buy powerwalls

Ah! That actually sounds like a great idea, treat it like a battery that also, from time to time, can move stuff around.

Yeah, that's what I figured the logic would be. But... if stock raises 70%, Musk's present share would also be worth 70% more, so he would already gain umty hundred billions (you know the numbers better than me). Should that not already be enough motivation? A trillion is, like, world hunger ending money. And it's money coming, essentially, out of your pocket.
(All that noting that to Musk, Tesla stocks are on-paper wealth. He can't sell them all at once, nobody would be rich enough to buy them. He also can't sell them at medium speed, because he would have to disclose that, I think, and it would probably be interpreted as a bad sign and risk tanking the price. I think he could sell them very slowly. Or just hold on to them and use them as securities for credits, like is custom.)

Spot on at the end, he just wants 25% voting control, he doesn't care about the money he has in it, my guess is he actually never ends up selling it. unfortunate rules and regulations on the stock exchange make it virtually impossible to do things like what Google did, (you know how it split into GOOG and GOOGL where one have voting power and the other doesn't. The company was never structured that way and rules prohibit, devaluing existing shareholders. so really to grant him 25% voting we are stuck with a compensation plan like this.

Heh, yeah, the official proposal, in all its groveling glory, states that as the motivation, more or less. I don't quite buy it. A little bit, because after all, how many super-yachts can you simultaneously be on? Hang on. You could build one really big one, with a huge pool, then into that pool, you put a slightly smaller super-yacht. Recurse as deeply as your pockets allow!
Anyway, he already is CEO and as long as he is doing a good job, why would he need more voting power than he already has? And everything I said also applies to voting shares, why would you give yours away? And even if it is not about the money for him, it's still your money getting siphoned off.
Hmm. Maybe it makes sense this way. They know he likes power, but fear he is going to get bored with the CEO role at some point and quit, because let's face it, rockets are cooler than cars. So the shares and voting rights would be for his benefit after he quit, but of course under the condition that he sticks around for a bit and does a good job.

As for the murders I brought up, Yes both were different, the first on the subway, From my understanding the guy that killer her was in Jail for murder or something pretty serious and was let out, and had been in jail over 12 times. and to say he has schizophrenia is that deep empathy for the person of intrest,

I'm not going out to fact-check any of that. If he was convicted of murder, yes, he should not be let out before the full sentence is served, especially if he had previous convictions. No argument there.
If he was diagnosed with mental health problems, he should have been treated. While in jail if it was noticed after the murder, ideally it would have been noticed before the murder, and he should have been treated then. First, let me note that most of the time, people with schizophrenia are more a danger to themselves than they are to others. It's not one-size-fits-all, it comes in may forms. But medication that helps exists, and is reasonably cheap. This should be a no-brainer: The State, in some form, should pay for this medication. It is not a matter of compassion or empathy or socialism. It's cheaper than locking them away, and potentially turns a broken person into a productive member of society.

I also refer you back to the "Who gets to be crazy" video shared earlier.

As for Charlie Kirk, he was assassinated because of political warfare,

I appreciate your restraint. But you are still talking as if the attacker was somehow tied to the Democrats or otherwise left leaning. But you may have noticed that the people calling for harsh actions against anyone remotely responsible are a bit quieter now... The guy they currently have in custody as prime suspect is from the wider MAGA circle, a follower of Nick Fuentes, a different right wring influencer. Apparently, Fuentes and Kirk had some beef. Kirk was not fascist enough for their tastes, or something. Again, I'm not going into deep dives there.
You're also forgetting the guy who invaded Nancy Pelosi's home, hammered her husband and had planned to kidnap Nancy. The guy was a Jordan Peterson fan, Gamergate bro and, unsurprising, QAnon believer, and that's not half of it.
And in Minnesota, Melissa Hortman and partner were murdered this year. The suspect is a Trump fan and strong Abortion opponent. Trump did not order flags to fly half-mast then. John Hoffman and partner were also shot, but survived.
And no worries, I'm not forgetting the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, for demanding too high prices for drugs. And while the suspect is more of an anarchist, the internet, especially the left half, fell in meme-love with him a little bit too much.
Fact: Both sides are not equally bad there. Currently, deadly violence comes much more from the radical right than the left.
And social media posts of randos aside, which you will always find tons of horrible crap on all topics from all corners and how much only depends on how hard you are looking, violent rhetoric also comes much more from the right.
Trump: "We have to beat the hell out of radical left lunatics" (https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tru ... 31584.html)
Musk "The Left is the Party of Murder" https://x.com/Gadget440/status/1966913069508161730 At a Tommy Robinson rally, who you will probably not believe is on the extreme right. Yeah, that settles the thread title question for me again for the next couple of days.

Socialism is not the answer though, we need different levels of wealth for a functioning society, we need competition, to enable innovation.

You need SOME difference in outcome to give people motivation, correct. But the current spread is just obscenely large, because having weath makes it easier and easier to accumulate more. We need more equality of opportunity. But also not total equality, because people who are not successful deserve to have an excuse. You should try some European Flavor Socialism some time Did you know that in the German system, under some circumstances, you can opt out of the systems? If you earn enough, you can just quit the regular healthcare system and switch to a private insurance (you got to have insurance, though). And if you go freelance, you can opt out of unempoyment insurance and the pension system. You don't have to organize replacements there, but you probably should.

With that said, the stuff Elon is working on at Tesla will likely break the capitalist economy, if executed well, and could turn us into a more socialist economy with universal income. It's kind of hard to imagine what we will become, if AGI is achieved, and we can have humanoid robots replacing most humans jobs today.

It's break things, for sure. I'm curious how you think that would work. Assume that Johnny Cab stuff works (I keep mistyping robotaxi...), and say you can buy a Cab for 40,000 bucks and it is super profitable. Your rich neighbor sees that and buys ten of them. They're still super profitable. Some company with much more money buys and operates a hundred. They can operate them more efficiently than you, because they have dedicated service teams, while you have to go to your car mechanic of trust to fix small issues now and then. Also, you have to clean out the vomit from drunk passengers yourself. So they can price you and your neighbor out of the market. The next company buys a thousand Johnny Cabs (and now I'm mistyping that, too). At some point, say now, the market is saturated. So far, more robotaxis meant more rides taken in them, but now, there are so many that there are just no more rides to take. So now each robotaxi takes less customers per day. At some point, they would be barely profitable. But they'd still be all on the streets, because only then, they can take customers. And smarter people predicted that having them constanly drive around will probably be cheaper than having them park, so now you have 1100 robotaxis clogging the roads and nobody is getting anywhere.
Now, Tesla could prevent that scenario by aritifically raising prices. Robotaxi operation is going to be a subscription service, anyway, would be my guess. So they can raise the price for that, and the car, to the point where the turning point comes earler. Yeah, that would be a hard sell. Also, it would put your single robotaxi business at even more of a disatvantage to the big guys, because you probably want to use the car for yourself, too, and while you do that, it is not making money and the expensive robotaxi license is just sitting there.

And with the robots, I assume the desired end state is that you have an army of robot workers that belong to nobody, or everybody, that can build more of themselves as needed, that do all of the work for all humans? So perfect slaves?

Why do the robots have black heads, btw?

The "belongiong to nobody" part is crucial for it to work. If they belong to somebody, that somebody is going to demand money or other compensation for the robot services. And If they do all of the work, no human has a job any more, no human can deliver that. So you don't just have to break capitalism, you have to break ownership, which is older and more fundamental, and that breakage is not automatic. That is not impossible! All any robot factory would need to do is take a page from the content industry: You can't ever BUY a robot. You purchase a license. The robot will work for you for ten years, then it will roam free and do whatever it deems servers humanity best, work for anyone who feeds it a bit of electricity and oil.
Yeah, that's not going to happen. Who would buy a robot under these conditions, when a similar product is available without? Tesla is not the only robot company. They'd all have to agree to do something like this.

[Lucifer]

Ok, can someone explain how a billionaire promising utopia after we've rounded up all the wrong people and shipped them out of the country is a good thing? Exactly what level of gullibility do you have to have to see that as a good thing? "First, let's get rid of all the illegals. Then, I'll make so much money from Tesla that you'll all never have to work again"

As for the automation that Tesla robots are supposed to bring us, first let's take a moment and laugh at how Tesla's taxis have been shut down in Austin while Waymo keeps going. Would y'all like me to try to get video of a Waymo sometime? I see them every day.

Just reminding y'all that while Kyle's reading stock reports and watching YouTube videos, I'm seeing the actual results of all of it on the ground in my city. One of us is seeing what's really happening, is what I'm saying.

Side note: The waymo cars look really cool. I love the little radar on the roof, but there's radar on the corners too. But they drive like shit. I've seen a few of them make illegal turns (you know, there's a right turn lane, but they turned right from the lane next to it). Saw one the other day do the whole "Do I turn left? *turns on signal* Oh wait, I'm turning right! *changes lanes and turns right*" thing. So yeah, I give them distance when I see them.

And no, Kyle, I don't want to see your ignorant rantings about the mental healthcare system. The fact that you think you're qualified to use the phrase "over-medicated" is enough to tell me you don't know what you're talking about. You're not a doctor, or a therapist, or anything remotely like that. You just don't know what you're talking about. Have you had your yearly mental health check, yet? You should get one, if you want to show us what a functioning mental healthcare system looks like. So yeah, you do need counseling, even if it's just once a year to make sure you're doing fine. Therapists are one of the four people you never lie to. Pretty sure you don't know who the other three are.

Anyway, yes, Z-Man, thank you for pointing out that 99% of the political violence is coming from Kyle's friends on the right. Ok, I'm being generous by suggesting Kyle has friends. I should really try to be nicer. I'm sure Kyle doesn't know any murderers, even though they're agreeing with him politically. I was genuinely worried that Charlie Kirk's killer was going to turn out to be a leftist, but now I feel dumb for worrying about that. Of course the political violence is from the right. It always is.

On a related note, we should have a law similar to Godwin's Law that reflects the fact that in any debate about the second amendment, sooner or later the gun nut will threaten to shoot the liberal. Maybe we can call that Luci's Law.

[Z-Man]

"I'll make so much money from Tesla that you'll all never have to work again"

Yeah, I feel like that bit of the plan requires some more details before I understand it. We're not all galaxy brains. I'm stuck on "but we still have to pay for the robots, and how are we going to do that if we don't work anymore?" and "why exactly should we invite electric vampires into our homes?"
The "get rid of all foreign looking people" part makes sense in that context, they would be doing all the work the robots are supposed to be doing. Can't allow that!

Anyway, yes, Z-Man, thank you for pointing out that 99% of the political violence is coming from Kyle's friends on the right.

The nonrhetorical number thrown around is 75%. It depends on how you count. Grok agrees (found on the socials):

I sense another retuning coming.
And it has already happened, this time they must have scrubbed the sources Grok accesses. In between, it even claimed Kirk was still alive. But the 75% thing still remains.

Wikipedia has a handy list of killed US political figures, if you want to rig your own counting.

I was genuinely worried that Charlie Kirk's killer was going to turn out to be a leftist, but now I feel dumb for worrying about that.

Don't feel dumb. The fear has a rational basis. Some people (not high profile ones, mind) were already frothing at the mouth of declaring this their "Reichstag Fire moment". Literally, seriously. That's referring to the fire in the German Reichstag in 1933, shortly after Hitler became chancellor. It was arson, blamed on a communist (details are disputed today). The Nazis used that as a welcome opportunity to crack down on all communists to turn Germany into a one party system. Yep, they suggest doing exactly the kind of crackdown and ultimate power grab as the Nazis. While referencing the Nazis.
Stephen Miller lays out the battle plan, just smartly avoiding the actual reference bit.
Well, now that they can't blame anyone but themselves for the violence, they swung to accusing the Left of not mourning and honoring Kirk enough. Because people are using the opportunity to just quote what the guy actually said.

On a related note, we should have a law similar to Godwin's Law that reflects the fact that in any debate about the second amendment, sooner or later the gun nut will threaten to shoot the liberal. Maybe we can call that Luci's Law.

I'm pretty sure that only happens to you, after you annoy them half to death

[Z-Man]

After some thought, a bit of caution: Kirks killer did share memes associated with the far right, however, all that may also be consistent with him just being a meme-brained gamer. The indistinguishability is part of the strategy of the far right. Man, these guys are weirdos.

Musk and his shares: If he really cares more about the voting rights than money, he can just buy more shares, right? I mean, he just did. He is "independently wealthy", states the proposal.

[kyle]

As for the automation that Tesla robots are supposed to bring us, first let's take a moment and laugh at how Tesla's taxis have been shut down in Austin while Waymo keeps going.

This is a lie, Tesla Robotaxi areas in Austin are larger than what Waymo offers, and utilize the interstate. While still in beta phase there is a safety monitor, sometimes in the driver seat if going on the interstate, but literally they don't need to be doing anything 99.999% of the time, just there out of an abundance of caution. Yes Tesla doesn't have a large fleet size yet, but that's due to extremely strong sales, as the ev credit phases out the end of the month. I suspect once all orders are delivered, they will start pumping them into the network, and remove safety monitors, likely by the end of October.

... CEO. What are you even talking about, kyle?

Take Apple today. Tim Cook is also not really a visionary. But he is a capable business leader, and Apple manages to get a new phone model out every year, simultaneously worldwide, without stock shortages.

Founders of must of those companies did amazing things, now the new CEO's are just riding in what the past set them up for, I would argue that Apple really has not done anything revolutionary to move the needle since Jobs, sure the stock goes up because fanboys buy it, but it's arguable not anything special anymore.

Well, there is the Apple Watch, which is very successful (not at first, but in later iterations) and has demonstrably saved lives. I'm absolutely not a smartwatch guy, so I could not tell you. But with the usual caveat that you have to fully buy into the Apple ecosystem, it's apparently very good? And the Vision Pro, which was not a huge sales success, it wasn't designed to be one, more of a test balloon. But it was VISIONary. Haha. Geddit?

Those are both copycat products. 2 years from samsung watch before apple made one, and Meta had their VR before apple came out with thiers

Yeah, that's what I figured the logic would be. But... if stock raises 70%, Musk's present share would also be worth 70% more, so he would already gain umty hundred billions (you know the numbers better than me). Should that not already be enough motivation? A trillion is, like, world hunger ending money. And it's money coming, essentially, out of your pocket.
(All that noting that to Musk, Tesla stocks are on-paper wealth. He can't sell them all at once, nobody would be rich enough to buy them. He also can't sell them at medium speed, because he would have to disclose that, I think, and it would probably be interpreted as a bad sign and risk tanking the price. I think he could sell them very slowly. Or just hold on to them and use them as securities for credits, like is custom.)

Spot on at the end, he just wants 25% voting control, he doesn't care about the money he has in it, my guess is he actually never ends up selling it. unfortunate rules and regulations on the stock exchange make it virtually impossible to do things like what Google did, (you know how it split into GOOG and GOOGL where one have voting power and the other doesn't. The company was never structured that way and rules prohibit, devaluing existing shareholders. so really to grant him 25% voting we are stuck with a compensation plan like this.

Heh, yeah, the official proposal, in all its groveling glory, states that as the motivation, more or less. I don't quite buy it. A little bit, because after all, how many super-yachts can you simultaneously be on? Hang on. You could build one really big one, with a huge pool, then into that pool, you put a slightly smaller super-yacht. Recurse as deeply as your pockets allow!
Anyway, he already is CEO and as long as he is doing a good job, why would he need more voting power than he already has? And everything I said also applies to voting shares, why would you give yours away? And even if it is not about the money for him, it's still your money getting siphoned off.
Hmm. Maybe it makes sense this way. They know he likes power, but fear he is going to get bored with the CEO role at some point and quit, because let's face it, rockets are cooler than cars. So the shares and voting rights would be for his benefit after he quit, but of course under the condition that he sticks around for a bit and does a good job.

he only owns a single house, no super-yacht, he wants to get to Mars. But take a look at google and meta, They set up structures where the founders had super voting shares and retain a lot of the voting power, This is what Tesla should have had, but did not, Then take a look at how Twitter was setup, basically like Tesla is, this gave him very small control to actually be able to do the right things with the platform. We want someone who can have the control to lead the company rather than someone setting there just trying to collect money voting to do all the wrong things.

and ya, Elon bough a billion in shares last week, that hardly moves the needle in his ownership in the company, and where is most of his money, it's already tied up in companies, he can't just buy more shares to get to the 25% he wants