Re:xAI has acquired X, xAI now valued at $80B
by bumby on Monday March 31, 2025 @05:48PM
(#43540354)
Walter, you seem so triggered that you can’t have a rational discussion.
I have no issue with Musk or his success. Stop trying to frame it like that. You’re stuck in an internal narrative which is wholly different than what I have said.
SpaceX could not have succeeded without the government. Just note that the venture capital did not invest until SpaceX got government resupply contracts. My position is that the govt has a larger risk tolerance, and thus facilitates ushering in nascent industries. Something like 95% of SpaceX contracts in its early days came from the government. It’s been like this in aerospace since the Wright brothers, when the promise of an army contract turned it from a hobby to a legitimate business. That doesn’t make Musk “bad” or the government “bad” because they both operate under different constraints that can be mutually beneficial. It’s just weird to see people refuse to acknowledge something because of obvious cognitive dissonance, but humans are gonna human, I guess.
The government needed SpaceX and SpaceX needed the government. We probably disagree why, but I think I have a more nuanced understanding than yours, which comes across as dogmatic and ideological since you can’t even parse the points being made.
To the point of the actual thread, do you think the purchase of Twitter has proven to be a good business investment, outside of any govt effects? If so, why?
I have no issue with Musk or his success. Stop trying to frame it like that. You’re stuck in an internal narrative which is wholly different than what I have said.
SpaceX could not have succeeded without the government. Just note that the venture capital did not invest until SpaceX got government resupply contracts. My position is that the govt has a larger risk tolerance, and thus facilitates ushering in nascent industries. Something like 95% of SpaceX contracts in its early days came from the government. It’s been like this in aerospace since the Wright brothers, when the promise of an army contract turned it from a hobby to a legitimate business. That doesn’t make Musk “bad” or the government “bad” because they both operate under different constraints that can be mutually beneficial. It’s just weird to see people refuse to acknowledge something because of obvious cognitive dissonance, but humans are gonna human, I guess.
The government needed SpaceX and SpaceX needed the government. We probably disagree why, but I think I have a more nuanced understanding than yours, which comes across as dogmatic and ideological since you can’t even parse the points being made.
To the point of the actual thread, do you think the purchase of Twitter has proven to be a good business investment, outside of any govt effects? If so, why?