Only Elon Musk can fire Elon Musk from SpaceX, filing shows | Hacker News Reader

Only Elon Musk can fire Elon Musk from SpaceX, filing shows

reuters.com

24 pointsspenvo20 comments

Shocking! The owner of a company owns the company! Who knew?

Why would you want anyone but Elon Musk at the head of SpaceX?

Because he is starting to manage it in really corrupt ways? Acquiring xAI for an overinflated amount is like stealing from SpaceX shareholders.

Also, he is looking less like someone doing amazing things and more like someone talking about the amazing things he is gonna do.

In the past I was thinking I would really like to invest in spacex. Who know they might do really well. I am not so sure now.

The first catch of Super Heavy by the chopsticks was 18 months ago. Tesla started mass production of a dedicated, steering-wheel-free robotaxi five days ago. The first flight of the new Raptor 3 engine should happen any day now.

Elon is doing amazing things on a regular basis. What would drive someone to pretend otherwise?

If Elon can do all of that why does he employ so many people?

This rude reddit stuff, this snarky ignorance-as-an-argument junk, is just so demeaning.

The role of the entrepreneur is to organize labor and capital in pursuit of their goals. The achievement of said goals can obviously be attributed to the entrepreneur.

Try anchoring your arguments in facts--in reality. Make assertions. Form syllogisms. Word games are for children.

There is no mass production of Tesla robotaxis. The most generous interpretation of the claim of mass production is that they are no longer handcrafted by a prototype shop, and that work has moved into a Tesla facility. But that's not a production line, and that's not mass production.

Every Tesla car that hasn't got someone in the driver's seat with the steering wheel in front of them is being followed by a chase car and a remote operator.

But this is all fresh BS. How many times has Elon claimed that Tesla semi is in mass production?

You have successfully rebutted my use of the word "mass". What about the substance of the argument?

I agree that he has gotten ahead of himself. His companies still do some good stuff, but his talk has increased, specially on AI. AI has always been his biggest weakspot.

I agree with you, I would have invested in SpaceX in most of their history, and I was very bullish on Starlink and continue to be. But once you talk about being worth trillions and have orbital AI datacenter and twitter, I'm out.

Because instead of focusing on Space he has gone all in on AI (after going all in on AI for years with Tesla causing a huge issue). I think Musk was great at leading SpaceX when he really was focused on it.

Now he is focused on something else and he is using SpaceX good name and finances to make an AI play.

So yes, I have nobody over the old, lets go to Mars Musk, the new 'its all about AI' Musk, not so much.

Isn't this all just the long game for Mars? Humanoid AI robots would be beneficial there too.

And the only way to get AI is to invest 100s of billions yourself? Doing all the investing for a insane datacenter in space thing?

Instead of just saying "anybody that wants to put data-centers in space, please pay us".

SpaceX has been incredibly successful without massive acquisition for a long time. Every product the made was a banger. And now they bought fucking Twitter.

The Mars colony was as big a pipe dream as putting gigawatt data centers into orbit.

Colony yes, but that's very long term. The general idea of having a big ship that can land on Mars and is resonably cheap is possible and a good thing to do. And useful for many other things. Its the right step to move human space flight forward.

I can see some scientific and mostly engineering spinoffs from a space station and maybe a moon colony, but sending humans to Mars only raises the downside risk of manned space flight.

If the expansion of human knowledge and science is the goal, the only thing putting a human on board does is raise the cost 10X.

Because even an AI chatbot would do a better job than him?

Even if you accept that Musk is currently the best possible head of SpaceX (which in my opinion is a very strong claim), he probably won't always and forever be the best possible head of SpaceX.

Musk's strength is in making bold plays, assembling teams together to make those plays, and building hype around those bold plays. Those skills were certainly critical for both SpaceX and Tesla in the early days, anyone denying that value is either delusional or pushing a revisionist history. But as companies grow large and mature, their needs change. Is Musk the leader you want when you need to do the boring work of making your infrastructure more robust? Would Musk even want that job?

He somehow has managed to keep Tesla price irrational for very long time. Doing same with SpaceX could happen.

Presumably because you think SpaceX is a good company, and that Musk is a bad leader, and you'd prefer good companies not have bad leaders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com