One exists and is wildly useful. The other is self indulgent bullshit to distract from the fact that Tesla is a terrible company that would be bankrupt without the circus act.
How much fucking money was deposited to make a piece of shit car fly for a couple of seconds that could have changed many many lives makes me sick. Fuck this timeline and fuck that musk gooch
How much fucking money was deposited to make a piece of shit car fly for a couple of seconds
They basically used the stabilization from SpaceX mixed with the old compress air gimmick that was used in the 1984 Olympics, which only work for very short flights because you quickly run out of compressed Nitrogen after a couple of seconds, which is a technology from the cutting edge 1960s. It's great to make a visual stunt but you need to constantly recharge the nitrogen canisters each time the feature is used to impress your friends for a couple of seconds.
It's all nonsense.
That vehicle was built on a lightweight composite frame—essentially just a big, light shell with no battery or other systems. But the Musk fanboys think they'll be flying next year, lol.
It would be funny if they pushed it onto US consumers in a couple of years, only for us to end up with endless videos of random explosions and falling debris. I’m sure pedestrians would appreciate the excitement.
No, not during the demo. The car was on a stage in front of the audience with the audience being a safe distance from it when it did all the crazy stunts.
Yeah it's practically the same, one of them has a man controlling left and right on a jetpack, the other is a freaking car that drives upside downby itself, flips through the air, and automatically stabilises itself.
I mean it's practically the same isn't it. Although the tesla used compressed air, rather than pure nitrogen, which it can theoretically charge.
But pretending it's a gimmick is rather disingenuous, it was a spectacular tech demo.
The model with only rear jet boosters will actually be available to purchase, but the rocket car one that can fly is limited to "invite only" with no one knowing who gets invited yet.
The rocket car one also only has one seat, the other has two.
I don’t get Reddit. This was a dope demonstration. Everyone acting like their personal money was spent on something stupid. Spending money on plastic water bottles when perfectly good water comes from some pipes nearby is just as insane in my book.
It's technically less impressive than the similar 1974 Bond stunt which had to be calculated on 1974 computers, less practical than the 1960s olympic jetpack, and will never ever reach production. Where exactly should anyone be impressed?
Really, the 1974 stunt in which a driver drove the car to a predetermined speed and aimed at a ramp, which made the car spin and land?
Keep in mind we had computers calculating bomb trajectories in planes in 1916 onwards.
This was an entirely automated demo in which a car drove upside down and then flipped and automatically self-righted. It is really not technically less impressive at all.
This is how much people love Musk. And what he does. What's not clear? It's all a distraction from the fact he spent almost 400 million dollars this election cycle. Who tf cares about a stupid impractical stunt that's making their stock plummet?
Edit: or the fact he's throttling starlink in Ukraine. This guy is a pos. He's pure evil. Only very stupid.
The comments defending him are so far removed from reality. The majority of them are likely bots, and all of them can’t handle an ounce of reasoned argument.
What? Starshield is operated by the US Military under the authority and directives of the President of the United States. Starshield is who throttled and restricted Ukraine's military use of that service.
Right? Too bad we didn't have reddit back when Evil Knivel was wasting his money doing crazy motorcycle stunts so that reddit could tell us how it was all just a waste on a performative spectacle.
Everyone acting like their personal money was spent on something stupid.
Do you have any idea how much US tax money is being wasted on corrupt boondoggle contracts with Tesla? I have every right to be indignant at the waste.
I wrote something similar. I agree. He could be doing so many good things, like all the other top billionaires. They would still make money, just not as much. This is a disease. In this kind of world, to be able to sleep at night while children die of starvation daily, while at the same time growing your own wealth by a degree of billions, is lunacy.
The thing is they just don't care. They lack empathy and genuinely don't care about those children. How else do you become that successful if you had a shred of morality?
He could rebuild so much of America's rail infrastructure, build proper California high speed rail. Not Hyperloop. But nah. Vapourware is the way to go.
This is a guy that paid $11,000,000,000 tax in 2021 alone and you're not happy with that, nor that he uses the actual money he gets to keep on investing in sending humans and commercial payloads into space, providing fast low latency internet to the entire world just for fun, revolutionising electric cars and all kinds of other stuff
Honestly, the disease is people looking at that and thinking 'we need to milk more out of him' rather than 'maybe I could do something myself'
Yes, that President. The one who has the authority to direct the US military, which controls Starshield's military operations.
Starshield's service to Ukraine was restricted under US military authority, not by Musk unilaterally deciding to switch off Starlink, or allegedly whispering in Trump's ear.
Musk supporting Trump politically doesn't somehow transfer presidential authority to Musk, nor authority over Starshield.
❌ Claim: He promised to donate half that amount to “solve world hunger,” and then reneged on that promise.
In late 2021 Musk tweeted that if the UN World Food Programme could describe on the Twitter thread exactly how $6 billion would solve world hunger (with open accounting), he would sell Tesla stock and do it.
WFP head David Beasley clarified that $6 billion would not end world hunger.
Musk did not continue the conversation, and did not renege on anything.
❌ Claim: The disease is called “hoarding.” At least that’s what we call it with literally anything other than money.
Obviously it's not a disease, also it's not hoarding as the money is not in some giant scrooge mcduck vault but is invested in companies he is growing.
And the disease is called "hoarding." At least that's what we call it with literally anything other than money.
Yeah but the dude is constantly reinvesting his monies into new things, new inventions and new companies, and many of those things end up doing extremely well, like Tesla and SpaceX, which directly contribute to his wealth as a return on those investments. That isn't exactly just simply hoarding money.
And the disease is called "hoarding." At least that's what we call it with literally anything other than money.
Yeah but the dude is constantly reinvesting his monies into new things, new inventions and new companies, and many of those things end up doing extremely well, like Tesla and SpaceX, which directly contribute to his wealth as a return on those investments. That isn't exactly just simply hoarding money.
It is though. His company reinvests money, not him.
Wrong. Both the companies he is affiliated with and Musk himself reinvests their money. Musk bought Twitter primarily from monies earned by selling stock he owned. That's a direct example of him reinvesting his own money.
This is a guy who promised to donate half that amount to "solve world hunger," and then reneged on that promise.
So what? People are free to change their mind, Musk included. I encourage others to consider changing their mind from time to time as well.
And the disease is called "hoarding." At least that's what we call it with literally anything other than money.
Yeah but the dude is constantly reinvesting his monies into new things, new inventions and new companies, and many of those things end up doing extremely well, like Tesla and SpaceX, which directly contribute to his wealth as a return on those investments. That isn't exactly just simply hoarding money.
Yeah, people should do NOTHING with their money but help the poor, I agree!!
How many people spend money and time on thins like birthday gifts for loved ones or going to see a movie, or getting a pizza with friends instead of spending that money to help poor people more?
Are you? How much tax did you pay this year to fund essential services, Musk paid $11billion in 2021, how close are you to that? Quite far off? Perhaps you should get a job then and start giving all your money away, who knows if everyone does it it might come close
Does that even cover what his companies get in government money?
He is not the hand that feeds, none of his companies needs him. He is not an engineer, no a programmer, doesn’t build and I doubt that he would be able to mop the floors. I am absolutely convinced all his companies would be better off without him. Especially since twitter and ketamine deep fried his brain a few years ago.
It more than covers what his companies get in subsidies.
Remember that a lot of government money he receives is literally in exchange for services, eg space launches, ISS work, etc.
And most of the other subsidy money is something you benefit from as well, there is a reason America is such a powerhouse of the world, and part of it is that it encourages entrepreneurship through subsidies to ensure these companies work and invest in America and don't simply leave and go elsewhere.
He is an engineer and a programmer.
The fact you think he can't even mop the floors yet has built an empire making him the richest man who has ever lived suggests that you are a bit of a fool.
Obviously not working hard enough, or smart enough, come on pay piggy, earn more to pay for society, children are literally dying of starvation and here you are shitposting on reddit when you could be earning more money to pay for them.
Pretending you're not in a position to give money away, uh huh, are you literally scrabbling in the dirt, no, so get working
please dont make him out to be altruistic just because he pays what he is required to...by law..
If he pays what is required by law, as you have also done, what exactly is the problem? Where is his obligation to pay more? That's not saying he is altruistic, but him not volunteering more tax payments doesn't make him evil. Nevermind those tax payments are billions of dollars.
So Musk pays his legally required taxes, to the tune of billions of dollars, and you even acknowledge he has no obligation to give more. Yet somehow he's evil because he doesn't voluntarily spend his remaining wealth solving the world's problems?
That's quite the moral standard. Apparently paying billions in taxes isn't enough unless you personally eradicate world hunger afterward.
And Musk didn't personally engineer the car you're complaining about. Tesla has engineers who design and develop its vehicles. But sure, let's pretend every engineering project is Musk playing with his personal piggy bank instead of a company employing people to build products.
The argument is that the law doesn't tax people fairly because the richest have been getting tax cuts since Reagan. The richest people pay too little un comparison to what they earn (when they aren't comitting tax evasion).
Billions is absolutely nothing to trillions. And these people use that money to fuck over us workers. Stop batting for trillionaires.
If you think the wealthy should be taxed more, that's an argument for changing the tax laws. It doesn't establish that someone complying with those laws is doing something wrong.
And billions in taxes doesn't suddenly become "nothing" because someone's wealth is measured in larger numbers.
I'm not arguing that Musk is altruistic or that tax policy is perfect. I'm questioning the idea that someone is morally obligated to voluntarily surrender more of their wealth simply because they have it.
Disagreeing with that doesn't mean I'm "batting for trillionaires."
Yeah, pretty much. People are big mad at the bad, evil billionaire, who... checks notes.. pays his legally required share of billions in taxes, shares this publicly as well, but it still isn't enough, because he has more he could give... to taxes?
Why doesn't Musk solve world hunger or something more useful?! /s
So you're comparing people buying whole fucking governments as oposed to helping out the poor to being equal to buying presents for loved ones? What kind of level ar you at, bro? Get out from under that rock and catch some sun, damn.
Elon Musk's destruction of USAID just because he feared legal action is expected to cause 15 or so million deaths by 2030. Those are Hitler levels of death.
This was David Copperfield making Statue of Liberty disappear business. Just keep people staring at the shiny object and move them around on a turntable.
Can you imagine how much fun those people that engineered and design that car had doing that project. It was life changing do something they could only dream of them one day the said sure go for it.
You're the one who started the gotcha game. Where does it end? Do we discuss bank robberies? Is a grocery store robbery okay? Or stealing candy from a child? Where should we draw the line???
Will any of you actually not dodge the question completely? Do you all even have an answer to it?
His analogy doesn’t hold because no amount of crime is okay. But obviously having some amount of money is okay. His logic will lead us to concluding that we should have no amount of wealth to our name. This is obviously wrong.
You are getting ridiculous answers because your premise is ridiculous. Trying to find a specific number under which it's ok to have that amount of money is ridiculous. It completely misses the point. The issue is that these people could use their obscene amount of money for something good. You don't need to find a limit. It doesn't matter. It's not the point.
When have I ever argued against "the point"? I frankly don’t care what you think of Musk or anyone else and neither do they. My question wasn't implying (intentionally at least) that billionaires are good or whatever.
Will any of you actually not dodge the question completely? Do you all even have an answer to it?
His analogy doesn’t hold because no amount of crime is okay. But obviously having some amount of money is okay. His logic will lead us to concluding that we should have no amount of wealth to our name.
You draw the line wherever you want to, it's not an exact science worthy of pedantry. The point is there is no way to join the ultra wealthy class without being a monumental piece of shit
You are talking about logic while totally jettisoning any attempt to steel-man the thing you're arguing against; hardly the act of someone who actually cares about logic.
We can deduce that this other person who isn't me (stop acting like its you against a cabal), thinks that becoming a billionaire marks you out as apsychopath. You have taken the insane leap to suggest that they would have no gradient to their hatred of wealth accumulation when you live in a world absolutly jam packed with philosophies, economic theory and policy by governments that all have functions for limiting the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of the few while allowing for all sorts of competition and reasonable wealth accumulation, But you just jump to something mad and have the audacity to call to logic of all things?
Your position is the most childlike non-engagement with reality huffy puffy trying to win an argument with facts and logic, but sadly with the facts and logic of an omeba in a petri dish with zero external information. You deserve no explanations; you have done nothing but invent the most stupid possible aveserial position so that your tiny intellect could tackle it.
who cares if someone came back with an imperfect analogy? You didn't deserve the effort of logic you hadn't used any to start the exchange.
I've left all the typos, spelling mistakes and shit in this because it will give your cognitive dissonance something to hide behind so you don't get too hurt by the realisation you're an idiot.
You've appointed yourself legislator by asking where the line is for violent crime.
Of course the premise is stupid, murder is inherently bad but owning money is completely normal. Upon being asked to explain at what amount of money it goes from being okay to not okay, you've made this weird unrelated analogy about crime, and the analogy doesn't even work because it's possible to define where the line is for crime, we've literally defined it and it's in the legislative code of law.
However you've yet to define where the line is for owning money.
The premise is stupid because you've completely misunderstood what the premise is. Your misunderstanding of the premise is indeed very stupid.
The analogy works perfectly. More violence is more bad. Murder isn't bad and then anything below that is perfectly fine.
There isn't a line for owning money because it's about how that money came into their possession, just like crime. Taking $20 from you is a crime if you do not want me to take $20 from you. If you want to give me $20, perhaps because I am giving you something in exchange, that isn't a crime.
Punching someone in the chest is assault, unless it's been agreed that you can punch that person in the chest, perhaps as part of a boxing match.
Likewise, someone earning $1,000,000 through their own labor is fine. Someone earning $1,000,000 by exploiting the labor of others is not.
So why is $1 billion always bad? Because you cannot earn that much money without exploiting the labor of others. It isn't possible. Where exactly is the line where you could possibly earn that much yourself? That's fuzzy. That's hard to tell. But $1 billion so far above that line that we can say with certainty that it has been earned through some degree of exploitation.
Sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about.
Likewise, someone earning $1,000,000 through their own labor is fine. Someone earning $1,000,000 by exploiting the labor of others is not.
This, is stupid. Nobody is being exploited here. Lots of people are being paid money and they can use that money to start and raise a family though, which is real nice. And we get rockets and cars in the case of Musk, plus literal billions in tax to fund schools, libraries, etc.
You've just attached an arbitrary value, and you've been asked to define where the cut-off is, and you cannot
I draw the line at $200m. If you are hoarding wealth so much that you own more than $200m in assets, you are a psycho.
It's an arbitrary amount well beyond enough to money to live a dream life without worries outside of the inevitable.
Wherever you want to argue the line is, it is far far far away from a billion. A billion dollars is actually obscene as I said. A sickening amount of resource hoarding to the extent that it is undeniably genuine violent misanthropy.
I draw the line at $200m. If you are hoarding wealth so much that you own more than $200m in assets, you are a psycho.
So if I take one penny out and get just below that line, I'm safe?
If not, do you see the sippery-slope your emotional argument is making since you do not have a logically sound one? Notice how your point is weak and just about subctive stances on morality instead of any objective metrics?
You didn't even say USD or if that was inflation-adjusted or not.
We deserve shitty leaders until regular people like us bring more nuance into our average conversations.
So if I take one penny out and get just below that line, I'm safe?
Yeah, sure.
our point is weak and just about subctive stances on morality instead of any objective metrics.
This is not unique to resource-hoarding... We make moral values into objective metrics for loads of things (quick obvious examples: age of consent, gestation limits for abortions).
You didn't even say USD or if that was inflation-adjusted or not.
I figured it literally would go without saying in the discussion. People aren't talking about people with a billion zimbabwean dollars or whathaveyou when they criticise the evilness of billionaires.
We deserve shitty leaders until regular people like us bring more nuance into our average conversations.
Lol, wut? Speak for yourself. We are capable of having nuanced conversations and also reaching obvious, correct conclusions. As I said wherever any reasonable person is drawing the line about how much is too much to hoard... it is a loooong way before $1billion.
Having wealth doesn't make one inherently evil and terrible. However objectively evil people tend to excel at gaining obscene amounts of wealth because they don't care how much damage they do to get it...like Elon for example.
I agree we need more nuance in our lives but its really not hard to understand why people say things like "people don't need more than $200 million" when the only billionaires we have thrust into our lives are power hungry pieces of shit like Musk, Bezos, the human reptile, and Trump...none of them are good people and keep collecting unfathomable amounts of wealth beyond what they need while pushing for shit thats going to hurt the common man financially.
Sure there are good rich people who are very philanthropic with their wealth but we don't hear about them hardly ever and it doesn't seem like the majority so why should people change their mind on the rich until they see more from them?
Yeah, people should do NOTHING with their money but help the poor, I agree!!
How many people spend money and time on thins like birthday gifts for loved ones or going to see a movie, or getting a pizza with friends instead of spending that money to help poor people more?
I don't think so. A lot of people want to be billionaires. I want to be a billionaire. It's up to the society to tax people in such way that it's clearly reglamented and equal for everyone without exceptions. The tax system should prevent people from becoming multi-billionaires.
It's not about wanting to be, it's about becoming and being
One does not simply become a billionaire, it effectively requires you to exploit everyone who works for you, often coupled with already having been born rich.
Then, once you have that title, that absurd wealth warps your perspective even more
It is also about wanting to be one. Wanting to have all that resources, more than you could spend in many many lifetimes, instead of wanting other people with nothing to have those resources.
So you made a generalizing statement "Being a billionaire means you are inherently a psychopath."
Then after I asked about stipulations you basically explained a certain KIND of billionaires are bad, and they clearly aren't "inherently" bad like you said they are, that would imply being born into wealth makes you guilty.
So this is honestly just an argument of language. It's horrible for society to generalize like that, if you NEED to add modifiers to make your statement ACTUALLY legitimate... Well, your original statement doesn't hold the value you thought it did.
You know what has really changed my life? Self driving cars. Like the automobile, it was something that almost nobody had, and now regular people have it.
Making rocket on cars could save lifes, Imagine an ambulance or a rescue vehicle. Also, investing on a research doesnt hinder you to research something else
At that point you should also be losing sleep over the metals in your phone which are mined by enslaved children in the Congo with very low life expectancies. You should be crying your eyes out to the East Asian children who work in inhuman conditions to make pretty much everything you consume. You definitely shouldn't own a car. You shouldn't be ordering off of Amazon. You shouldn't be eating any meat. All of these things directly cause suffering to billions worldwide. Unless you're self conscious to the point where you avoid doing all of those, I think it's safe to say that you don’t actually care about "changing lives" and are just virtue signalling.
Ah yes, the you-cant-care-equally-about-everything-so-you-couldn’t-possibly-care-about-anything-at-all defence.
Requiring people to be monks in order to speak out against anything is mental. You’re right, being a human causes suffering, but the cool thing is I can try and limit the suffering I cause by limiting my own impact in all the ways you suggested. I don’t drive if my feet/public transport can get me there, I don’t get a new phone until the old one is completely dead (and honestly my next one won’t be a smartphone), I donate to charities when I can, and volunteer my personal time. It goes on. I can’t offer much but I offer what I can.
You can care about some people's suffering while ignoring other people's suffering, sure. Would make you a hypocrite in my book though.
There is also a huge difference between caring about the suffering you create vs caring about the suffering someone else creates by not spending their money in a way you want.
What you clearly don't understand is that the spectacle is what leads to further innovation. Going to the moon had fuck all purpose other than just being able to say that we did it and the Russians didn't. But our space program gave us GPS, cordless powertools, chemical-free water sanitization, digital signal processing, and the CMOS sensors sitting in your phone right now, among many other things.
Similarly, if we can pack things into a car that can keep it upright midair or even slow it's descent, we save lives in some otherwise very nasty crashes. Is this exact mechanism that Elon demonstrated what's going to do it? No, but we've now seen that it's possible and further work can be done to make it more practical.
Is this exact mechanism that Elon demonstrated what's going to do it? No, but we've now seen that it's possible and further work can be done to make it more practical.
How many crashes actually launch a car in the air?
How many of those crashes launch the car in a normal trajectory that can be controlled?
How many of those crashes where the car is launched in the air in a well-behaving trajectory have the luggage perfectly balanced and tied so that the application of thrusters is actually viable?
How much damage will the thrusters do to everything around them while trying (and utterly failing) to stabilize it?
How many of those crashes where...well you know by now...have a perfect empty landing strip (or really, any suitable space at all) behind it where they can "land" the car?
Go find a tissue and wipe that Elon spunk from your face, it's disgusting. And think a little before opening the mouth again.
Well it turns out I hit it here right in the beginning.
So now it's not about stabilizing a car launched, but rolling, where the floor is the major force affecting the trajectory. So your solution to avoid rolling on the floor is LAUNCHING THE CAR IN THE AIR and stabilizing it there (I hope you can see why firing thrusters on a car rolling on or near the floor does not work). Totally sane and safe idea.
I value my neurons too much to let them self destruct by continuing such an idiotic Elon-fan discussion
Call me once this is a viable product. Actually, call me once FSD is, it's still 12 years late from announcing.
Yes, turns out when something wants to go one way (because momentum is carrying it towards rolling), you can provide enough force to stop it from doing that, which is infinitely more safe than allowing a 2-ton chunk of metal and glass to fly all over the road.
Yes, please stop wasting your neurons fantasizing about Elon getting blowjobs. It's really weird, even for a fan such as yourself.
You invoked the moon landings to justify this garbage. This is a stunt to make people talk about Tesla and pump their stocks, that is all it is and all it will ever do.
You compared the lack of knowledge or uncertainty of what this will lead to. These two acts are not even in the same ballpark of the potential real world applications that the Apollo missions gave us, and to suggest they could be is asinine.
Is this exact mechanism that Elon demonstrated what's going to do it? No, but we've now seen that it's possible and further work can be done to make it more practical.
Yeah, people should do NOTHING with their money but help the poor, I agree!!
How many people spend money and time on thins like birthday gifts for loved ones or going to see a movie, or getting a pizza with friends instead of spending that money to help poor people more?
1.9k
u/True_Protection6842 7h ago
One exists and is wildly useful. The other is self indulgent bullshit to distract from the fact that Tesla is a terrible company that would be bankrupt without the circus act.