I understand it now, after reading the thread. There's a reason for that.

I have not been following the machinations of X very closely. I don't have the corporate structure of Elon's empire in my head, nor do I have the Meta or Alphabet/Google hierarchies in there. I couldn't have told you about the history of xAI beyond that it exists.

So that's plain ignorance of something you consider common knowledge, but I don't, rather than "aggressively trying to not understand it." And that phrase is particularly grating btw.

> I'm curious how you could not understand the relevance of the quote unless you were aggressively trying to not understanding it.

Monet probably wondered how other people couldn't see purple in a haystack.

What are they hiding that wasn't hidden already? Two private companies making a private transaction.. there is no mandatory reporting now nor after this move

Tesla acquiring solarcity was the same thing over. It did not make sense. Then and it does not make sense now. But the distortion field is so great no one notices.

Parent poster may have been thinking of other readers. I see it as you do, but it's a fair question.

But that is also just an assumption isn't it? Could this not also be related to the fact that they plan to launch a ton of servers into the sky to run in space and power AI? It would mean that their AI product would become heavily based on the services provided by SpaceX via launching all this.

But regardless, I think quotes like these should have some commentary around them as it helps create a discussion around whatever point they might be trying to make rather than having to make assumptions.

Is it financial engineering or social engineering?

He's all over the Epstein files and his daughter has publicly verified that the timing works out and the emails are probably legitimate.

https://www.threads.com/@vivllainous/post/DUMBh2Vkk8D/im-jus...

What are you talking about? They are both private companies. They don't have public financial reporting.

didn't tesla just 'invest' 2bills in xai?

[dead]

yeah, I am not a huge fan of Musk, but this move is just going to bring down arguably the only decent thing he's produced.

Leave SpaceX alone you child. Gwynne has it in excellent hands.. find some other way to pay for your juvenile brainfarts.

It's really disturbing how confidently blinded you are by whatever political biases you have.

Hiding losses? From whom? He's the majority shareholder of both businesses. The combined company will go public and report on things like revenue, burn rate, etc. It's not financial engineering. It's a purchase.

Just say "rocket man bad" and save some keystrokes.

Well if they plan to put a crap ton of new satellites in the air specifically for running xAI on it, I think there is a decent chance that it isn't purely financial shenanigans. Obviously the finances are probably a big part of such a decision, but companies also do these kinds of things all the time. I don't see why this is considered "shenanigans" or how the quote would relate to what is happening.

maybe I am a fool, does space-based AI make no sense at all?

I see what you're saying, but I also know that companies do these kinds of things all the time. It's very normal for companies to move around like this if it results in better financials. I don't see how that really makes this "financial gymnastics". Pretty much every company out there does some funny things with the numbers in order to reduce their tax burden. I wouldn't doubt this is the same kind of thing. If xAI plans to launch a ton of servers into the sky, it kind of makes sense for them to be apart of a company they also own that just so happens to launch satellites.

Starlink is also a company under SpaceX. Would you argue that is also financial gymnastics? Is it much different from what Starlink does? Instead of launching satellites to be a world wide ISP, they are launching them to be an AI provider.

I just don't see how this compares to the quote, otherwise it would apply to so many companies, including other ones already under SpaceX.

To me this just doesn't seem related and seems like a pretty big stretch likely biased by people who dislike AI and Elon.

SpaceX does real work at a profit, and its competitors will need even more time to catch up than they did Tesla.

Obviously there's a pattern of financial engineering, and it's inefficient, but the winners do offset the losers so there won't be a total collapse.

The military (and/or government) should keep paying in advance for anything they need from SpaceX and make sure other unsecured creditors are not tooo significant.

When it all goes bankrupt, they can pay off the bonds for x¢ in the dollar and own SpaceX.

Perhaps if the gov could organize a little better, they'd make sure SpaceX owed lots of taxes and put themselves in front of the queue for ownership and screw other creditors (especially foreign).

Edit: looks like the US military doesn't spend that much on SpaceX: https://londoneconomics.co.uk/blog/publication/crouching-riv...

> Americans will be forced to bail this mess up because we need Falcon 9, Starship one, etc.

Or they could just go with the competition. If it came down to propping up something, I don’t see much difference between propping up ULA, Blue Origin or SpaceX. In the current environment who gets propped up probably depends on who scratches Donalds back.

This could just be a gamble they hope pays off. Or maybe there is some kind of other bigger picture strategy at play here that goes beyond just the AI from space idea. I try to stay optimistic about innovations in tech and I like to see companies willing to try new things instead of just staying stagnant.

For example, I think the car market had become pretty stagnant with traditional car makers, and most electric cars they attempted to make sucked. Tesla making good desirable electric cars really pushed EV's into becoming more popular and having a better charging network. I think it would have taken much longer for EV's to start growing in popularity if someone wasn't willing to take a risk.

Are they going to be too early to the market for this kind of tech? Maybe. Is it going to end up being a waste of money? Yeah it totally could be. But at the end of the day I do like to see some risks being taken like this and it sucks seeing constant negativity whenever companies try something new.

> Musk's margin on Twitter from being called by his investors,

Primary and largest investors in X are: Elon Musk, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Larry Ellison, Jack Dorsey.

I don't know that you need to worry about their financial well-being or that they are getting a raw deal.

So what? People who buy SpaceX shares should take into account all of its debt when deciding how much to pay for a share.

Won't someone think of the future SpaceX shareholders!

All this is happening before then, no? So people can take that into account when pricing IPO shares, or deciding if the IPO ask is too high.

>> SpaceX is a private company

> so are the banks?

Which relevant bank do you have in mind that is not a public company (listed on a stock exchange)?

> Who is SpaceX’s biggest customer?

It is estimated that Starlink is, accounting for 70% - 80% of revenue. Sources: [1] and [2]

NASA is SpaceX's biggest external customer for rocket launch services.

Although NASA is SpaceX’s largest external customer for traditional launch services, the company earns far more revenue from Starlink customers (millions of subscribers). So overall Starlink itself is SpaceX’s biggest revenue generator and de facto largest customer segment.

[1] https://pestel-analysis.com/blogs/target-market/spacex

[2] https://londoneconomics.co.uk/blog/publication/crouching-riv...

SpaceX saves its biggest customer money by being the superior, cheaper launch option. The alternative was ULA, which was an extraordinarily expensive monster.

Please highlight the problems you have with how it pertains to this context, how the biggest customer is harmed.

What do you care if its private owners are willing to absorb the mess that is xAI?