Well one could make the argument that Musk is a short or medium term problem and that in 4 years when Trump is gone everyone will forget about hating on Tesla and it will be a great car company again. Musk is in his 50s and won’t be CEO forever. So if your investment horizon is 10+ years and you don’t predict total company collapse then it might be a bargain time to buy.
Tesla market cap is currently $959B, shipped 0.5M vehicles in 2024.
Toyota is second with $244B and shipped 11M vehicles.
Ford shipped 4.4M vehicles and has a market cap of $41B.
If I look at [1] then Tesla is worth more than the next 12 or so combined.
Nothing about this makes any sense. Maybe ten or fifteen years ago you could have made the argument based on future prospects, but that case is exceedingly hard to make today when there's tons more competition on the EV market.
That's not how it works for Tesla. Totally different buying experience. You order online, get a notification some days or weeks later that it's ready, go to the store sign a couple of documents and drive off with the car. Maybe 10 minutes total. (Source: bought a Tesla a few years ago). I just recently got a Kia EV9 and it was a 3-4 hour marathon of paperwork, talking, more paperwork. Really terrible buying experience. Nice car though.
Yeah that's one of the reasons my dad went with Tesla for his recent car purchase. My wife helped him get a RAV4 (Toyota) a few years ago and the three of us lost four hours on a weekend because of the song and dance that dealerships put you through. Never again. From now on it'll be Tesla, Rivian, Polestar, or Lucid instead.
That's the old way of thinking -- they're trying to do just that across the government and without some enforcement mechanism to make them send the checks, the practical result is that the President can indeed cancel pieces of legislation via impoundment.
Example 3 - CHIPS act would have had funding withheld if a Federal Court hadn't stepped in, but it's unclear what enforcement mechanism can force the funding to resume: https://archive.is/BxjHw
Sure, but a lot of people at NIST who were in charge of implementing the CHIPS act have been fired. He definitely seems to be doing all he can to sabotage the CHIPS act without needing any congressional action.
He sure seems to be able to just terminate legislation signed into law. He already did it with USAID, and is in the process of doing it to many other departments.
You like this rule being broken? Great, good for you.
What about the other rules? The ones protecting you and the country? Is due process not valuable any more? What protects us from people with bad or selfish intentions?
Yeah, kids starving and dying of cholera.. fuck em /s
> The Inspector General also warned that $489 million in humanitarian food aid was at risk of spoiling due to staff furloughs and unclear guidance. The Office of Presidential Personnel fired the Inspector General the next day, despite a law requiring 30 days notice to Congress before firing an Inspector General.
The correct way for the government to reel in USAID would be for congress to give them less funding and to tell them specifically what they want funded. Regardless if it offends you personally, those are all lawful uses of the money and the only illegal thing that's happened here is the funding being stopped by the President.
First, I would not trust the current USAID disbursement personnel not to piss the money into the wind. I want them gone.
And it's not a question of being offended personally - these are just ridiculous expenses that cannot possibly be justified. But I am indeed offended that the amount 4x of my real estate taxes that I can barely scrape off the bottom of a barrel is being wasted on some opera abroad. If you are wondering why people vote for Trump, this is one of those reasons.
Regarding legality of funding being stopped by the President, I am not a lawyer (and I am guessing neither are you), so I am not going to take your legal opinion on this and will wait for the courts to issue the final ruling.
That they are senseless enough to their their personal opinions on budgeting should run the entire government, and that their little agendas are the reason everything should burn to the ground? Yes, that is why people voted for trump (they are stupid and vindictive).
You can't berate or threaten people into thinking your voting or political opinions are smart/well founded. It either is or it isn't.
Watching Trump illegally destroy institutions that collectively use <5% of the federal budget, while increasing the defect, and rationalizing it as "At least Trump is trying to do something about the runaway government spending" is stupid. Straight up stupid.
The fact that there’s a specific law called the Impoundment Control Act where the specific actions Trump is trying were made illegal should give you a hint to which way the court cases are going to go..
Why are you confident the Supreme Court will not declare the Impoundment Control Act an unconstitutional restriction of executive power? Or declare the only recourse is impeachment? Who do you expect would enforce the ruling you predicted?
That is surely the elephant in the room.. every time it’s been litigated before the court in the past, the Act has been found constitutional but who knows with this specific set of justices and their obsequiousness to Trump and his executive branch.
Those numbers are for the wrong line items, and the WH press secretary was wrong about the source of those funds. Both of those were out of the state department budget, which (putting aside the present murky status) did not oversee USAID at the time.
What can I say... if you are correct about this (there are a lot of claims from both sides but no proofs), I hope DOGE gets its hands on the State Department, too. We have enough worthy causes to take care of inside the US.
But DOGE has been trying to do effectively that for the past month, and has been distressingly successful at it. (For all that conservatives whined about the existence of an unaccountable deep state override elected officials making laws, that's basically an accurate description of DOGE.)
I would argue that the main benefit of democracy is not electing "the right people" by a free and fair election, but by having a mechanism to remove bad leaders without violence. So a propaganda machine influencing elections is not ideal, but if it results in bad leaders, then that will become obvious to people at some point and they will vote them out. Elections will always have some random factors. Not everyone is going to vote. There will be fads. So election isn't the important part, UN-election is.
I mean, technically, the US does it every four years. At least, it used to. But that was just a blip in the historical record. We'll see what happens in four years from now to see which way the trend moves. Here's hoping it was truly a blip and not the start of a trend
This is not medical advice, but I have used rapamycin for an as of yet undiagnosed autoimmune condition (likely psoriatic arthritis vs rheumatoid arthritis) and it almost completely cures the condition while taking it, at the cost of mild-moderate hair loss and acne (which recovers on cessation of the drug). I cycle on and off rapamycin every few weeks to minimize side effects and whatever unknown long-term risks.
Summary of article: A single NPR link got automatically flagged by X to display a warning after NPR changed the URL for an unknown reason. It was reported to X who said it was a false positive and corrected it.
The details in the summary given by the previous poster were from the article. I don't know what distinction you think exists between a "hit piece" and "fact based reporting", but this article falls into the fact based reporting category.
I called it a hit piece because instead of saying users recently found a bug affecting 1 link to NPR. They say X "Caught" blocking links like it was something intentional and not an erroneous error. Any other site not connected to Elon with the same issue and it wouldn't of been writen I suspect.
> instead of saying users recently found a bug affecting 1 link to NPR
This is a good example of bias. It is not a fact that this was a bug. The fact is Twitter displayed the warning. Twitter has told NPR it was a false positive, but a journalist shouldn’t take an uncorroborated secondhand statement from the party being accused of potential wrongdoing as proof of anything.
Imagine for a second that this was done maliciously. Do you think Twitter would immediately admit that? Of course not, their statement would likely be identical to the one we got. Therefore the “fact based reporting” thing to do is present the facts, present Twitter’s response, and let the reader come to their own conclusions.
>It's a fact that a pattern of behavior was accused, but a pattern of behavior was not shown.
Yes, that is exactly what both the article and I said. The warning was applied to the link. Some people accused Twitter of doing that nefariously. Twitter denied it and claimed it was a mistake. Those are the facts of the situation.
The motivation for applying the warning or whether it was a mistake are not facts that can be confirmed by an independent journalist. They are speculation regardless of which side of the issue you come down on.
What are you talking about specifically? Can you point to a quote from the article that you think crosses a line journalistically? Because it seems like you’re equating reporting on the existence of accusations with actively making accusations and that type of thinking comes from either bias or a lack of media literacy.
> Who needs to know X erroneously blocked 1 link to NPR?
The appearance of a conflict of interest is a story. This appears to be a conflict of interest because a site is making it more difficult to read a negative story about a candidate endorsed by the company’s owner.
> Is it one link or many?
This is a rather pedantic complaint but multiple instances of the same link qualify as “links”. This is easier to see if you imagine them physically, multiple copies of the same book would be referred to as “books”.
It looks like the gel “learns” to get better at the game because if it correctly positions the Pong paddle over time then the dynamics of stimulation become predictable rather than random. since the system tries to naturally minimize its free energy, it will eventually start to model the ball dynamics enough to better control the paddle, all making the input dynamics more predictable and thus minimizing the energy of the system.
The traditional way that you train a biological network like this is that you give it stimulations based on what the game is doing and you give it an ability to control the game. But when something bad happens it's given a lot of random stimulation that it doesn't understand. So the biological network tries to minimize the amount of random stimulation it gets and it learns to play the game better because the stimulation is consistent and predictable.
I didn't go into the paper to see if that's exactly what they're doing, and I'm no expert. But from what I've read before, that's how this usually works, and I'm sure they're doing something similar to that.
