He is a scam artist, but this specific argument in the broader reality doesn't really stick. The argument is that no one ever sells something that yields value to anyone else, which is obviously off.
It works better if you highlight that Tesla is less like those companies. They are demonstrably big on vertical integration, including the ride shares, so for them, it is out of character, but as a generic business strategy, it's perfectly routine.
Broadly, you have a point. However with Tesla Musk has been pretty consistent that they would be directly doing it and they have the Tesla app managing the rides.
Their strategy has been all in one, they make the cars, they own the chargers, and they don't really partner with anyone in any significant way.
While it does happen that companies end up partnering and competing at the same time, it's relatively less likely. So for Tesla it is extra strange to be pitching being a supplier for other autonomous taxis while simultaneously being in the market.
So yeah, generally it is a poor argument, but in the context of Tesla, it is at least a bit out of character for them.
We don't have evidence, this was sparked by her account tweeting toward Elon speaking about "your mom" in third person and saying effectively that she met herself in 1966.
However, since the story didn't even make sense accounting for the third party tone, it's more likely she meant to say "your grandmother" referring to her mother-in-law. Though they deleted the post rather than explaining/correcting, which is weird.
However it's also plausible because we know he has done sock puppeting, including his toddler son. I feel like sometimes she had weirdly conveniently timed and worded posts to reinforce some point Musk said.
Correction that they are also farming lumber, but the cycle is just much much longer.
I know a family that does it as one of a few things they do. Their timber land is relatively small so they have it harvested all at once. Every couple of decades a company pays them a healthy sum to get the timber and then nothing is done with the land for the next couple of decades while trees grow. In addition to the cash payment, they get to own the land tax free as it counts for agricultural exemptions.
Others in the thread are deeper into it and speak of staggered logging so there is annual logging off like 1/25th of the trees at a time.
Not to say there isn't cutting of totally natural forest, but there is farming too.
Of course in that scenario it may be private information, but given you are trying to file it, inherently you at least are in the realm of sharing it.
I would imagine things like asking for legal advice on a crime committed, which could hilariously backfire when that chat transcript shows up in court.
This is a reason I feel like public health care should be a bipartisan issue. Business people should love not having to do health insurance for employees.
Once they have that much care and thought, then they probably would have the thought of asking the art teacher or art students to do something vaguely meaningful.
So you just said about 20 years of life is only twice that of the last three years of life for your starting figure. Add in college and it's still not that egregiously more.
You feel the need to add public school costs, but not add in medicare, social security, and other expenses exclusive to old age.
I said unique, old people need a lot of health care, generally way more than a kid. Most kids after birth just have routine checkups and not much else. Infants might get a bit more doctor visits because the parents don't know if they should worry or not because the infant can't speak, but generally even those amount to nothing.
Babies more universally need diapers than old folks, and do eat more than an older person, but health care is absolutely bigger for elderly.
Even at constant population or even mildly declining, you would expect the young to outnumber the old by a bit. Given people die on the way to getting old and die whole being old more than the young die.
They may be even fewer than when the currently old folks when they were young but still be expected to outnumber the old
That's the neat part, they generally do pay for "their" electricity, but there isn't enough electricity for them to do that so power plants and infrastructure expansion must happen and they pretend that's for everyone, not just them, so they shouldn't pay for the capacity since technically they can't tell whose electricity is really whose.
Sure, but situations evolve that change the meaning.
15 years ago, being an independent contractor was relatively rare and pretty deliberate. Now that's just being registered with Uber, Lyft, Doordash. So lots of people stop becoming "unemployed" and become "independent contractors" due to what is essentially a cultural shift. Being an "employed" independent contractor is trivial now, but says nothing about income prospects.
The side job scenario certainly isn't new, so your point is taken there, that number of jobs "created" always could have been either good or bad without context.
Well not lying, but not what everyone thinks it is.
One person picks up a side job after getting hours cut at his work? That's a new job created, even if that person makes less than they used to.
A guy gets laid off but registers with a gig app to try to pick up some driving or delivery tasks with spotty income prospects? That person is not "unemployed".
You aren't recognized as looking for work despite having no job? You don't count as unemployed either.
The "underemployed" is probably better to get an idea.
I mean, it's somewhat possible, depending on context. However even if it helps someone with vision realize their goals 10 percent faster, it helps the person with zero vision pump out slop 100x faster than someone with good content to make.
He is a scam artist, but this specific argument in the broader reality doesn't really stick. The argument is that no one ever sells something that yields value to anyone else, which is obviously off.
It works better if you highlight that Tesla is less like those companies. They are demonstrably big on vertical integration, including the ride shares, so for them, it is out of character, but as a generic business strategy, it's perfectly routine.
Broadly, you have a point. However with Tesla Musk has been pretty consistent that they would be directly doing it and they have the Tesla app managing the rides.
Their strategy has been all in one, they make the cars, they own the chargers, and they don't really partner with anyone in any significant way.
While it does happen that companies end up partnering and competing at the same time, it's relatively less likely. So for Tesla it is extra strange to be pitching being a supplier for other autonomous taxis while simultaneously being in the market.
So yeah, generally it is a poor argument, but in the context of Tesla, it is at least a bit out of character for them.
Clearly you mean "New America"
We don't have evidence, this was sparked by her account tweeting toward Elon speaking about "your mom" in third person and saying effectively that she met herself in 1966.
However, since the story didn't even make sense accounting for the third party tone, it's more likely she meant to say "your grandmother" referring to her mother-in-law. Though they deleted the post rather than explaining/correcting, which is weird.
However it's also plausible because we know he has done sock puppeting, including his toddler son. I feel like sometimes she had weirdly conveniently timed and worded posts to reinforce some point Musk said.
Correction that they are also farming lumber, but the cycle is just much much longer.
I know a family that does it as one of a few things they do. Their timber land is relatively small so they have it harvested all at once. Every couple of decades a company pays them a healthy sum to get the timber and then nothing is done with the land for the next couple of decades while trees grow. In addition to the cash payment, they get to own the land tax free as it counts for agricultural exemptions.
Others in the thread are deeper into it and speak of staggered logging so there is annual logging off like 1/25th of the trees at a time.
Not to say there isn't cutting of totally natural forest, but there is farming too.
Of course in that scenario it may be private information, but given you are trying to file it, inherently you at least are in the realm of sharing it.
I would imagine things like asking for legal advice on a crime committed, which could hilariously backfire when that chat transcript shows up in court.
This is a reason I feel like public health care should be a bipartisan issue. Business people should love not having to do health insurance for employees.
Once they have that much care and thought, then they probably would have the thought of asking the art teacher or art students to do something vaguely meaningful.
They would presumably have an art teacher. Or a student that wanted to express their feelings via art.
So you just said about 20 years of life is only twice that of the last three years of life for your starting figure. Add in college and it's still not that egregiously more.
You feel the need to add public school costs, but not add in medicare, social security, and other expenses exclusive to old age.
I said unique, old people need a lot of health care, generally way more than a kid. Most kids after birth just have routine checkups and not much else. Infants might get a bit more doctor visits because the parents don't know if they should worry or not because the infant can't speak, but generally even those amount to nothing.
Babies more universally need diapers than old folks, and do eat more than an older person, but health care is absolutely bigger for elderly.
Not really. The unique expense for a kid is education compared to the old, and elder care can easily eclipse that.
Even at constant population or even mildly declining, you would expect the young to outnumber the old by a bit. Given people die on the way to getting old and die whole being old more than the young die.
They may be even fewer than when the currently old folks when they were young but still be expected to outnumber the old
That's the neat part, they generally do pay for "their" electricity, but there isn't enough electricity for them to do that so power plants and infrastructure expansion must happen and they pretend that's for everyone, not just them, so they shouldn't pay for the capacity since technically they can't tell whose electricity is really whose.
It's a pretty broken model in this scenario.
Sure, but situations evolve that change the meaning.
15 years ago, being an independent contractor was relatively rare and pretty deliberate. Now that's just being registered with Uber, Lyft, Doordash. So lots of people stop becoming "unemployed" and become "independent contractors" due to what is essentially a cultural shift. Being an "employed" independent contractor is trivial now, but says nothing about income prospects.
The side job scenario certainly isn't new, so your point is taken there, that number of jobs "created" always could have been either good or bad without context.
Well not lying, but not what everyone thinks it is.
One person picks up a side job after getting hours cut at his work? That's a new job created, even if that person makes less than they used to.
A guy gets laid off but registers with a gig app to try to pick up some driving or delivery tasks with spotty income prospects? That person is not "unemployed".
You aren't recognized as looking for work despite having no job? You don't count as unemployed either.
The "underemployed" is probably better to get an idea.
I hate to say it, but waiting for some evidence.
This particular "bombshell" is pretty vague and unhinged. He purportedrly said he was sure of the election because of his space lasers....
That's really only evidence of mental illness and/or being incoherently drugged up.
Well unless you mean trying to bribe up votes illegally, but no one seemed to care about that one and it was just right out in the open.
I'm glad you can speak for every single other user of Lemmy and dismiss the view point of everyone that isn't like you.
I mean, it's somewhat possible, depending on context. However even if it helps someone with vision realize their goals 10 percent faster, it helps the person with zero vision pump out slop 100x faster than someone with good content to make.
Where's the roadkill?