Elon Musk/Tesla

[ZedLeg]

That’s not what anyone’s doing though. The research is just a straight extrapolation of how many people will die because of USAID cuts over time, which is very easy to see as Musk’s fault and a deliberate choice.

[dinny_g]

yep...

(Stop it Zed, I don't like this...)

[IanF]

That’s not what anyone’s doing though. The research is just a straight extrapolation of how many people will die because of USAID cuts over time, which is very easy to see as Musk’s fault and a deliberate choice.

That list is doing exactly that.

If I buy some shares and make a 10% profit in a week, can you extrapolate that to say I will be a millionaire this time next year (Rodney)? No, because there is not just one factor or guaranteed path due to an single action in anything except a scientific study.

[ZedLeg]

The list puts him up against people who have killed millions with their decisions, granted not in exactly the same way.

Would it be better if we listed him with other capitalists that have killed a lot of people, he’d definitely be at the top of the list for that one.

To answer your further question. What he did was more like buying the only company in africa that makes cost effective aids treatments and closing it.

[IanF]

[Mito Man]

I was reading the opposite from JP Morgan a few days ago which was hilarious. “It’s different this time” basically. Which is what they say every time.

Bailie Gifford is balls deep in SpaceX, they seem to run most of the Scottish pensions and mortgages so if anyone is exposed to that they may want to be aware.

[240PP]

[mik]

SpaceX "value" has swung downwards by over $850 billion from the high just after launch (pun intended) to current position today.

That's a swing in market cap that is greater than the value of Walmart corporation.

A swing in market cap that is greater than the value of CocaCola, PepsiCo, Nestle and Amex combined.

It's ludicrous......

Continues to tank. Best viewed in 6month view

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPCX/

[Beany]

The SpaceX share price is one of the few objectively funny things around.

[Mito Man]

One of my favourite little things related to SPCX is that in the days approaching the IPO a bunch of people who couldn’t tell their head from their arse started buying SPCE (Virgin Galactic). Another funny chart to look at.

[Beany]

One of my favourite little things related to SPCX is that in the days approaching the IPO a bunch of people who couldn’t tell their head from their arse started buying SPCE (Virgin Galactic). Another funny chart to look at.

This is the sort of intellect of Musk fanboys. Genuinely the dumbest cunts who deserve to lose their shirts.

[DaveE]

The seemingly massive spike in Virgin Galactic stock only looks significant on a relatively short timescale view of their stock price (say a year)

The spike doesn't even register on a longer term view because the price has utterly collapsed in the last 5 years...

[ZedLeg]

None of these space exploration companies are going to grow until they figure out how to get heavier things into space imo.

Space X especially, their success is pinned on starship working and there isn’t even a working theory on how to do that yet.

[DaveE]

None of these space exploration companies are going to grow until they figure out how to get heavier things into space imo.

Space X especially, their success is pinned on starship working and there isn’t even a working theory on how to do that yet.

Not according to their IPO filing - in that, they predict that 80% of their $30tn (!!) TAM will come from "corporate AI" - not rockets or space

Which is curious - for a company with "space" in its name, and where the first dozen or so pages of the IPO filing contained images (some real, some not) of rockets and other spacey stuff

But I agree in terms of Starship being a completely un-proven "system" with some major engineering hurdles and unknowns still ahead

Let alone that it's not even made it to LEO yet - in 12 (plus one aborted) launches

[Sundayjumper]

Continues to tank. Best viewed in 6month view

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPCX/

The "All" view is pretty good too:

Screenshot 2026-07-18 092302.png (60.39 KiB) Viewed 43 times

[Sundayjumper]

None of these space exploration companies are going to grow until they figure out how to get heavier things into space imo.

The weight problem is exponential - more payload weight requires more fuel (straightforward physics of moving against gravity).

More fuel is more weight. Which requires more fuel. Which is more weight... etc.

You need a Space Elevator.

[mik]

You need a Space Elevator.

One of those “look at me” dicks with a selfie stick would just try and climb it

[Mito Man]

None of these space exploration companies are going to grow until they figure out how to get heavier things into space imo.

Space X especially, their success is pinned on starship working and there isn’t even a working theory on how to do that yet.

Not according to their IPO filing - in that, they predict that 80% of their $30tn (!!) TAM will come from "corporate AI" - not rockets or space

Which is curious - for a company with "space" in its name, and where the first dozen or so pages of the IPO filing contained images (some real, some not) of rockets and other spacey stuff

But I agree in terms of Starship being a completely un-proven "system" with some major engineering hurdles and unknowns still ahead

Let alone that it's not even made it to LEO yet - in 12 (plus one aborted) launches

The corporate AI could include their space data centre plan but at this point their own AI is shit. Apparently they’ve been hoarding Nvidia AI GPUs and such is the shortage that they’re now renting them out to Google who use their own AI on them for a billion $ every month.

All a big circlejerk

[mik]

Related. Interesting.

[ZedLeg]

None of these space exploration companies are going to grow until they figure out how to get heavier things into space imo.

Space X especially, their success is pinned on starship working and there isn’t even a working theory on how to do that yet.

Not according to their IPO filing - in that, they predict that 80% of their $30tn (!!) TAM will come from "corporate AI" - not rockets or space

Which is curious - for a company with "space" in its name, and where the first dozen or so pages of the IPO filing contained images (some real, some not) of rockets and other spacey stuff

But I agree in terms of Starship being a completely un-proven "system" with some major engineering hurdles and unknowns still ahead

Let alone that it's not even made it to LEO yet - in 12 (plus one aborted) launches

Their AI ideas are nonsense as well, their idea for satellite data centers completely ignores the laws of thermodynamics