• ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    World's richest man can't summon up the self-confidence not to end his awkward brag with a "lol" like a nervous 16 year old testing the waters with a crush

      • CTHlurker [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Didn't Carnegie and Vanderbilt (or some other steel guy) used to send each other deliberately shitty gifts? Like one of them was a teetotaler and received entire barrels of expensive whisky and the other was some kind of conservationist and received taxidermined animals or some shit.

        • footfaults
          ·
          edit-2
          29 days ago

          deleted by creator

      • Parzivus [any]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Probably, but twitter didn't exist so they were forced to spend their money on huge houses and getting university buildings named after themselves
        I joke, but it'd be nice if the mega capitalists got back into putting a ton of money into nature conservancy

  • Parzivus [any]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Say what you will, but I did something monumentally stupid

    • CrimsonSage [any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Is it really "subsidized" if basically all your revenue is just funneled from the state in the case of spacex?

    • BynarsAreOk [none/use name]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Apart from the lucky few that manage to grift their startups to Google/Meta/MS etc for a few billions each everyone knows you only really get rich on the stock market, forcing your own company to buy back shares using your own company's profits.

      The whole "and he became rich because he made a very profitably business" is at best a fairy tale of the 50s.

  • TornadoThompson [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    He didn't acquire it - a gang of self-serving maniacs and ghouls did their share and they'll be wanting that share back, with interest.

    Forcibly wishing into existence a timeline where Tesla is ponied up to the Saudi's as compensation for this debacle and they then just proceed to change everything to combustion engines.

    • ZoomeristLeninist [they/them, she/her]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Saudi investment in the EV market is growing. EVs are ultimately fueled by burning fossil fuels, its just a lot more efficient since the fuel is burned at a power plant and the energy is stored, instead of being burned by millions of individual ICEs

      • blobjim [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Is burning at a power plant actually more efficient?

        • ZoomeristLeninist [they/them, she/her]
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          yes, there is some inefficiency (as there is with all energy transfer) in storing that energy, but compared to the inefficiency of ICEs, its a lot better. also, its easier to control emissions from a power plant than it is with millions of individual engines. the biggest problem is the batteries. but there is some promising research into batteries that dont require us to use up all our precious earth metals.

          basically, instead of millions of individual combustion reactions. you have one huge combustion reaction where the energy loss due to heat can be controlled on an industrial scale

        • CrimsonSage [any]
          ·
          2 years ago

          IC engines are only about 30% efficient with the rest lost to heat and friction.

  • flan [they/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    is it buyer's remorse that compels him to constantly talk about what a huge piece of shit the site is?