5/18/2026 at 6:20:08 PM
Because no one has commented yet on the legal significance:Musk lost today because the jury found that he waited too long to bring his claims. The jury answers only yes/no questions, so we do not know their exact thoughts, but it is likely they determined that the 2019 and 2021 Microsoft deals were too similar to the 2023 Microsoft deal that was the centerpiece of Musk’s lawsuit. Musk could have brought the same lawsuit in 2019 or 2021, meaning his claims were untimely for the 3 year statute of limitations.
Because the statute of limitations is a precondition, the jury was not asked to find any other facts. They may tell the press what they thought on other issues, or they may not.
The judge was prepared to immediately accept the jury’s finding, and said she agreed that the jury’s decision was supported by the evidence.
It is possible for Musk to appeal, but success is vanishingly unlikely. Whether Musk’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations is a quintessential question of fact, and appellate courts are extraordinarily deferential to factual findings by juries so as a practical matter it’s almost impossible to appeal this verdict.
by granzymes
5/18/2026 at 6:26:23 PM
My own thoughts:If I had been on the jury, I would have found against Musk on every point.
His lawyers created a “3 phases of doubt” to try and sidestep the statute of limitations, but it was clearly bogus and he was on notice of OpenAI creating a for-profit in 2019.
Musk was perfectly happy to have OpenAI be a for-profit, a non-profit with an attached for-profit (the current structure), or even just absorbed into Tesla. His complaints fell flat for me given the number of emails where he said that a non-profit was likely a mistake.
This is technical, but Musk clearly never created a charitable trust, which was a precondition for his claims. His funds were donated for general use by OpenAI, not for any specific use that would allow him to claim breach of charitable trust. Also, all of his funds were spent by no later than 2020 which is before his alleged breach in 2023.
Musk unreasonably delayed bringing this case until the success of ChatGPT and starting a competing AI company, and he had unclean hands because he attempted to sabotage OpenAI repeatedly by poaching its key staff while on the board.
by granzymes
5/19/2026 at 10:01:15 AM
As I read around, this lawsuit raised an important question: can a non-profit become a for-profit company?To that extent, what Musk was happy or unhappy with is irrelevant. What is actually allowed by the law is more important.
However, it seems that the lawsuit was not phrased that way and Musk just looked for damages to himself. In that frame it's not much of a surprise that things ended this way.
by DeusExMachina
5/19/2026 at 12:25:06 PM
There is a well established procedure for these things, happens in hospitals etc. Not a new question a jury needs to address.by rreichman
5/19/2026 at 12:31:14 PM
Not related to the story, but that your go-to example of converting to a for-profit organisation is a hospital is horrifying to meby Pingk
5/19/2026 at 12:48:06 PM
It's also not so easy. The for profit entity essentially has to buy all the previous entity's assets and assume liabilities. Since the assets are considered charitable trusts, the proceeds from the sale then need to go into a new charitable foundation. Regulators also need to approve that the assets were fairly valued and the entire process was free of conflicts of interest. Albeit complicated, the process is pretty straightforward for hospitals. But in OpenAI's case it seems more like they tried to jump through every legal loophole they found.by sigmoid10
5/19/2026 at 11:36:52 AM
> can a non-profit become a for-profit company?Presumably a non-profit can move all its staff and its stuff into a for-profit anyway.
by philipallstar
5/19/2026 at 10:10:37 AM
Would Musk have standing for asking that question about non-profit to for profit companies? I think this would be a role for the government rather than a private individual and the Trump admin is not exactly fond of enforcing regulations.by andy_ppp
5/19/2026 at 11:29:43 AM
It does not matter what standing Musk has, the question is the important part, not the asker. You can accuse him of hipocrisy and that still makes no difference. He can still be the vehicle for the question to be asked.The role of the government is to make the laws, and to apply them when violation are reported. It is also to regulate new situations as they arise, for example, if a court decides the law allows a non-profit to become a for-profit and that is deemed as not desirable, new laws can be passed to amend that.
It is the government roles, however, to going around to aks hypothetical questions before they are risen by someone, as there are too many possible hypotheticals, most never materialize, and that would be a conflict of interest. In that case Musk is as good as a vehicle as anyone else because he is bringing to the court a real-life problem that needs to be decided.
The Trump admin is not fond of enforcing regulations as the Biden admin was not fond of enforcing other regulations. That shows you can't expect the govenment to take that role since it's discretionary.
by DeusExMachina
5/19/2026 at 12:28:40 PM
There is a reason standing exists. We don't want a society where anyone can litigate the ill-defined "important questions of society" at will.I agree with you that this is an important question.
I disagree with you that, "Musk is as good as a vehicle as anyone else because he is bringing to the court a real-life problem that needs to be decided"
Standing is itself a very important and critical concept. If anyone could sue over any “important” public issue without standing, courts would be asked to referee disputes that are normally handled by elections, legislation, agency rulemaking, oversight hearings, and public debate. We don't want the courts to be such arbiters of so many matters and want their purview to be more narrow by design.
by ryan_j_naughton
5/19/2026 at 11:39:10 AM
> If I had been on the jury, I would have found ...No, you wouldn't.
The case was thrown out of court before you have any chance to comment or decide on that.
Jury don't randomly "found" something. The court ask questions, the Jury answers those.
by j16sdiz
5/21/2026 at 12:27:20 PM
> The case was thrown out of court before you have any chance to comment or decide on that.No, it has been decided by the jury https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69013420/572/musk-v-alt...
> Jury don't randomly "found" something. The court ask questions, the Jury answers those.
And here the jury has been asked questions about the statute of limitation, which is exactly what the parent commenter is referring to.
by DarkBrocoli
5/19/2026 at 11:45:35 AM
Juries are the "finders of fact". That's the phrase often used anyway.by trainfromkansas
5/19/2026 at 6:03:39 PM
How Jury in USA work is: Judge ask a question, Jury tell the count what they found the "fact" is, based on what is presented in court.They just can't "found" something when they are not asked. If you tell the count you found something because you saw something outside the court, that would consider invalid.
by j16sdiz
5/19/2026 at 9:05:35 PM
Practically speaking, since the jury is composed of multiple individuals, they're set up to express their "findings" via a strictly parameterized form where they check boxes or give numerical inputs.In its more colloquial sense, I can see why you prefer to call that "answering" questions rather than "finding" facts.
However, it's silly to quibble over the parent thread's author's usage of "found" when it's the dominant phrasing used in the legal system.
by trainfromkansas
5/19/2026 at 5:23:08 PM
It's even more preposterous that you can predetermine what a stranger would have done on that jury.by IAmBroom
5/19/2026 at 5:59:48 PM
I am saying the rule in court won't allow that.The problem is: As a jury, you can't answer the question you ain't asked.
In this case, they jury was instructed to answer a YES/NO question. They can say YES/NO or (sometimes, can't decide). They just can't answer something else. If they do, that is either disregarded, or consider the jury misunderstood the instruction.
You just don't understand how the jury system works.
by j16sdiz
5/18/2026 at 6:58:19 PM
Musk should have just made another company and then he’d have another 500 billion but he had that mistake and now it’s over. Then again we’ll see how well open ai does over the long termby DoesntMatter22
5/18/2026 at 7:04:17 PM
Evidence at trial showed that Musk attempted to pursue AGI at Tesla starting in 2017 before he left the board of OpenAI. He was unsuccessful in that endeavor and later restarted his efforts in xAI after the success of ChatGPT.by granzymes
5/18/2026 at 7:55:49 PM
Musk leaves the board in 2018 I think. And something happens in DX-754 where they've pivoted to AI in SpaceX around then too. I had a lot of trouble telling what "AI" meant in late 2017 at Tesla.---
Sept 1, 2017 DX-669: Funding paused confirmation. Elon is still on the board for a while. DX-707 specifies the board as of Sept 26, 2017, and even suggests adding Shivon, Jared, Sam Teller.
Jan 31, 2018 DX-748: Elon is still discussing things with Greg. Elon: "The only paths I can think of are a major expansion of OpenAI and a major expansion of Tesla AI. Perhaps both simultaneously"
Feb 3, 2018 DX-754: Sam Teller says Elon "just suggested we use SpaceX email for AI stuff so switching over to that"
Feb 4, 2018 DX-755: Sam Teller and Shivon Zilis discuss disabling Openai
Feb 20, 2018 DX-770: Elon officially leaves board (first document I see specifying)
by big_toast
5/19/2026 at 12:14:58 AM
This is not about money for him, this was always about control. When they wouldn't give him complete control over the project, he pulled out and probably expected OAI to fold without his support. But they survived, and he eventually realised that he had made a huge mistake by giving up all of his influence over SOTA AI research.by this_user
5/18/2026 at 7:50:34 PM
I sometimes wonder, what does one need a second 500 billion that the first 500 billion is not enough for?by andrei_says_
5/18/2026 at 10:29:44 PM
Interestingly, during the trial he promised to donate any potential financial winnings to OpenAI's charity.A move that surprisingly didn't get much press.
by aeternum
5/18/2026 at 10:48:41 PM
I think you are referring to a tweet on March 16th where he said "Btw, the proceeds of any legal victory in the OpenAI case will be donated to charity. I will in no way enrich myself." Not during the trial, not a donation to OpenAI's charity, and obviously not meaningful given his track record of not following through on public statements.by burkaman
5/19/2026 at 12:16:04 AM
It was official, he amended the lawsuit to codify it, read it for yourself: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Musk-...by aeternum
5/19/2026 at 2:22:04 AM
Thanks, couldn't find this. This is essentially a proposal to the court about how the case could be resolved though, not a promise, and he only proposed it after the judge denied his original proposal (https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Musk-...), which was "give me $134 billion". I think it would have been a little more credible if he had requested this originally.Even taking it at face value, it's just an idea for the judge to consider, not legally binding for anybody.
by burkaman
5/19/2026 at 12:31:41 AM
Putting it into a filing does not necessarily make it legally binding. I asked ChatGPT and (although it is clearly in the bag for OpenAI ;) it gave more color: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a0baf4a-e408-83ea-a44b-ff68bacb64...by matthewdgreen
5/19/2026 at 7:07:46 AM
That man's promises aren't worth a whole lot.by oneeyedpigeon
5/19/2026 at 1:17:02 AM
I genuinely don't know how to make a non-sarcastic statement about Mr. Elon Musk's promises.I especially struggle to not make a Venn diagram of people who still take Mr. Musk's promises seriously, and current state of American politics.
I simply cannot make a sentence about Mr. Musks promises that will pass Hacker News guidelines of being serious and productive.
...And that's how I feel about Mr. Musks promises, particularly those regarding donations and charities. I think the only way that promise by Mr Musk could've been made stronger, is if it were a Twitter poll :).
by NikolaNovak
5/19/2026 at 3:40:09 AM
You’ve written around the existence of pronouns with impressive determination.by laichzeit0
5/19/2026 at 2:26:09 AM
Each buck we spend is a vote for a business (which is a bag of ideals and methods) It is surprising that people apparently desire a future where they don't even have to bother listening to those in charge as every word is completely irrelevant. I had considered they don't understand capitalism is quite open to influence but they also do it in elections.by 6510
5/18/2026 at 10:36:12 PM
Elon Musk promises a lot of things that never come to fruition.by the_gastropod
5/18/2026 at 11:22:09 PM
Have we colonized Mars yet? Asking for a friend.by dmschulman
5/19/2026 at 4:40:29 AM
I don't understand this thinking at all.I share all the disillusionment and cynicism about Musk, shared here by others.
But he has also done amazing things. When someone declares they are going to create a Martian colony, something literally "out of this world", and against all odds makes unbelievable progress for years, including re-usable rockets that return and land vertically, more efficient powerful engines, and fast operational turnarounds, while making orbital travel mundane, hanging a criticism of schedules on the weak hook of "yet" is myopic.
by Nevermark
5/19/2026 at 6:18:40 AM
There will never be a colony on Mars. Not in the way we think about "colonies".For starters it's too cold, too dry, atmosphere is too thin, and there's no reasonably sustainable power source.
But all of that is irrelevant because there's no magnetic field. So radiation. So unlivable.
There's also no point in a colony there. If life ends on earth it ends on Mars. There are no materials there we want. It offers exactly nothing we can't do better here, for much less money.
Will we land on Mars? Sure. There's always the goal of being first. But live there? No. Unsupported by earth? Very much no.
by bruce511
5/19/2026 at 6:45:51 AM
I personally believe that the legacy we send to the stars will be silicon.Robots have landed on Mars. Maybe they will even figure out how to use minerals on Mars to build more of themselves. It is plausible to me that as far as space exploration is concerned that it will be autonomous within a few hundred years.
by bentcorner
5/19/2026 at 7:47:41 PM
earth's global ecosystem better not collapse before then -- and we're on track to make that happenby red-iron-pine
5/19/2026 at 6:25:39 AM
'..it might be assumed that the flying machine which will really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years- provided, of course, we can meanwhile eliminate such little drawbacks and embarrassments as the existing relation between weight and strength in inorganic materials. No doubt the problem has attractions for those it interests, but to the ordinary man it would seem as if effort might be employed more profitably.' Oct 9 1903by aeternum
5/19/2026 at 8:39:28 AM
I think many may not understand your quote, especially given the nature of the language and the apparent non sequitur: https://archive.is/F3nnPThat's an archive of the article it's originally from, from the NYTimes - "Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly", October 1903. The Wright Bros first successful flight would come in December 1903. The NYTimes also similarly published about the impossibility of spaceflight relatively shortly before it happened.
I anxiously await the day for the NYTimes to dismiss colonizing Mars as impossible, as it means we are most certainly on the cusp of achieving exactly that.
by somenameforme
5/19/2026 at 10:16:57 AM
The value of flight is incalculable. Especially if we see it as a precursor to satellites. A lot of people invested a lot in getting g it to work. Many people died making it better and better. The cost in treasure and lives was substantial, but the return is worth it.Contrast to the moon. The prestige was great, the investment enormous. The return was more-or-less zero. There was a reason Apollo 18 was canceled, and we stopped going.
(Current efforts are in no rush, and are mostly about prestige.)
The value of a colony on Mars is precisely zero. We might visit a couple times. But colonize? Nope.
by bruce511
5/19/2026 at 5:17:51 PM
The value of the first Mars colony may be zero depending on how you value it just as the value of the first Wright flier was 'precisely zero' or even negative. It didn't carry cargo and it killed or injured many of those that dared to fly on it.Assigning zero long term value however to another entire planet worth of resources just seems like a failure of imagination.
You can't get to the 777 without the Wright Flyer.
by aeternum
5/19/2026 at 6:22:59 PM
I'd add to this that Mars also isn't the end, but rather the beginning. The moment the first human steps on Mars, we will already be thinking ever more outward to ever more exotic targets, perhaps Europa being next. The bigger picture is starting the process of putting humans into the cosmos - and so it's not just another planet full of resources, land, and unknown discoveries awaiting us - but an entire solar system, and on a longer time frame - an entire galaxy.And I think once we start iterating on these concepts, the timelines might not be as long as might otherwise be expected. Forget the 777 - it's completely stupefying that we went from the Wright Flier to the SR-71 Blackbird [1] in 61 years. That beast is another product of the magic of the 60s - long-term sustained flight at Mach 3.2 - 2450+mph. London to New York in less than 2 hours. There really was something in the water in the US in the 60s.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird
by somenameforme
5/19/2026 at 1:13:03 PM
You're right there's a reason Apollo 18 was cancelled, but I'm not sure what you'd reference this. The main issue is that Nixon was increasingly paranoid that there was going to be a catastrophic failure in the Apollo program, and that it would affect his political career. He tried to hard to the cancel the program immediately after the first successful landing. NASA had already drawn up plans for not only getting to Mars, but for a complete human settlement of outer space with large space stations and more. This was all cancelled.So I think the comparison with flight is perfect. Imagine after the Wright Bros. flight, which countless people had died in the process of seeking to achieve, we had one uninvolved entity able to say 'yeah, I'm responsible for all this' and then canceled everything in a simple self-motivated political calculation to try to 'go out on top' so to speak.
The Moon was never the goal, anymore than the Wright Flyer was the goal. It was one small step on a very lengthy journey - a major milestone for sure, but nowhere near the end of the road. And that's where we remain in space, but thanks to the fact that so much expertise was lost in the ~60 year do-nothing era, we're now having to essentially start over. On the bright side, this time the driver's going to be private industry, just like with airplanes - and there will be no myopic politician to cancel it.
by somenameforme
5/19/2026 at 1:42:29 PM
Ok so let's talk about more terrestrial promises.How are robotaxis coming along, versus the promises?
How are Optimus robots coming along, versus the promises?
How is the 2nd edition Roadster coming along, versus the promises?
You need to stop thinking of Musk in terms of a person who has "done amazing things" and letting that lead you to a belief that he has some kind of special ability in this space.
He's the money guy. He's occasionally managed to acquire talent that has done amazing things. This does not give him an innate "make amazing things happen" ability. He can throw money at bad ideas and ineffectual people. He can make something happen given the size of his wealth, but whether that actually achieves any of the stated goals is largely independent of his own actions.
by sjsdaiuasgdia
5/20/2026 at 2:29:32 PM
Lots of late deliveries. This seems to be important to you.On the one hand, we have major advance, after major advance. But on the other hand, we have crossed out dates on a calendar! Cool things that were mentioned but haven't happen yet! Sad calendar! It's a real toss up!
Puzzle question: is aspirational calendar-target overoptimism good or bad if you get things done late, but sooner than you would have, or at least, more things than you would have, than if you had set more "realistic" targets. Like decades. And then been late for that.
I suggest instead complaining, you your time and Elon's tardiness to beat him to the punch! Lemonade punch.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are late at things, but without the contrast of famous wins, nobody complains. It is so unfair!
by Nevermark
5/20/2026 at 6:30:39 PM
It's not really about "late" at this point. It's failure to deliver.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...
by sjsdaiuasgdia
5/19/2026 at 5:30:00 AM
People don’t look at the complexity of a human character. They take the easiest extreme and run with it. I was on another HN thread where practically everyone was calling Elon a psychopath.If you think objectively Elon is not a psychopath.
by threethirtytwo
5/19/2026 at 12:41:26 PM
He has a higher body count than any serial killer who has ever lived with DOGE alone. He may or may not be clinically diagnosable, but he's a monster either wayby sumeno
5/19/2026 at 12:47:49 PM
While I share your opinion on his character, the first part of what you say is also true for almost everyone who wielded the kinds and scales power that was given to him via DOGE: Every battleship is a hospital not built, etc.by ben_w
5/20/2026 at 3:23:52 AM
> Every battleship is a hospital not builtIt's sad that this is believed when it's most often the opposite. Especially in this case we have a literal historical example. You'll never guess what Henry Kaiser built before creating Kaiser, the largest set of hospitals in CA.
by aeternum
5/20/2026 at 7:16:48 AM
I can't imagine why you think that's a good example.The money spent on the ships* could not be double-spent on hospitals. The workers whose manual labour was dedicated to those later ships could not be simultaneously dedicated to more hospitals. The crew of a battleship cannot be simultaneously working in a hospital, the maintenance teams repairing it cannot be simultaneously repairing a hospital.
Every resource-management game demonstrates this principle, even if they're all gross simplifications.
* Wikipedia says Kaiser's ships were cargo and transport, not battleships, which means they had the potential to be a net positive on the economy. This is better than a battleship, because domestic military gear can't be a net positive: the point is to keep matériel and personnel around to deter enemies, and only use them for training and when enemies aren't deterred.
by ben_w
5/19/2026 at 3:53:20 PM
There's a big difference between leaders making carefully considered decisions that have life and death consequences and what doge did.by sumeno
5/20/2026 at 7:22:38 AM
Sure, this is why I opened the way I did. I agree Musk's a wrong 'un.by ben_w
5/19/2026 at 8:25:46 PM
This is a false equivalency, and it minimizes the carelessness and maliciousness of how DOGE operated.by sjsdaiuasgdia
5/19/2026 at 8:26:33 AM
You’re right. Sociopath is probably a better fit.by Angostura
5/19/2026 at 2:30:11 PM
[flagged]by threethirtytwo
5/19/2026 at 5:21:16 PM
... Did you just suggest gp is "worse than Hitler" for suggesting Elon Musk, a man who's very publicly called empathy a "fundamental weakness" and "threat to Western Civilization", a sociopath? And you went on to compare the powerless women tried for witchcraft to the richest man in the history of the planet? Please go touch grass, my dude.by the_gastropod
5/19/2026 at 7:48:52 PM
don't forget the literal, repeated roman salutescomparisons to nazi leaders may be apt, because he is a business leader, and a nazi
by red-iron-pine
5/19/2026 at 5:59:16 PM
I suggested he's not in touch with reality when he accuses someone of being a sociopath who is clearly not.I compared him to the MOB that burned those women. That's the main comparison. You're the same because you and him would put elon to the slaughter because you're mob mentality is as violent as hitler.
You need to get in touch with reality.
by threethirtytwo
5/19/2026 at 8:28:17 PM
> Here's a test: Given the opportunity to kill Elon, you probably would. Given that you think Elon is a sociopath or evil incarnate.I'm generally against the death penalty. I'd be fine with just stripping him of his wealth and locking him in prison for the rest of his life. He doesn't need to die, but it would be good to minimize/eliminate his influence on the world.
by sjsdaiuasgdia
5/19/2026 at 10:27:05 PM
Right so basically the next worst thing before death.Man people really are stupid
by threethirtytwo
5/19/2026 at 11:04:29 PM
Great crimes demand significant punishment.by sjsdaiuasgdia
5/19/2026 at 11:30:56 PM
Delusional people see crimes where no crimes exist.by threethirtytwo
5/19/2026 at 11:55:37 PM
The destruction of the last vestiges of rule of law in the United States, an act in which Musk played a substantial role, unfortunately means he will likely not be prosecuted - but make no mistake, he has committed many crimes.And now that we are living in a lawless nation, we will all get to see how bad an idea that is.
by sjsdaiuasgdia
5/20/2026 at 1:04:15 AM
The US is a lawless nation lol? Talk about delusion.by threethirtytwo
5/20/2026 at 1:45:10 AM
The president is using the DoJ to represent him in a civil appeal.The president is creating a slush fund to pay off people who acted violently on his behalf.
The president has declared himself and his family immune from IRS investigation indefinitely.
The president is selling pardons.
The president is running influence schemes in the form of crypto sales and ballroom "donations".
The president is at a minimum enabling the people who are playing the markets (traditional and these new prediction atrocities) in advance of his on again / off again announcements about Iran, tariffs, etc. It's not out of the question that he approves of the activity and/or receives benefits himself.
The president uses mob tactics. Tariffs and DoJ threats are used to run protection rackets. Play along, pay up, and you can make your problems go away. For a bit. They'll be back later and they'll want more.
We are drowning in corruption.
by sjsdaiuasgdia
5/20/2026 at 8:11:21 AM
Yeah so is every other country on the face of the earth. Lawless is Somalia. The US is normal.by threethirtytwo
5/20/2026 at 9:18:26 AM
Got it, you don't value the rule of law. We are not the same, you and I.by sjsdaiuasgdia
5/20/2026 at 3:40:37 PM
I value it. But I value it practically and NOT delusionally in the sense that I understand that even though there is law, there will always be people who break the law.Then when I take this non-delusional perspective and apply it to the US I understand that the US and every country on the face of the earth has a degree of corruption.
Then I do another realistic comparison about the DEGREE of corruption... and we find that the US is relatively NOT lawless when compared with MANY countries.
Also Elon is not a psychopath. But you and many on this thread are delusional.
by threethirtytwo
5/20/2026 at 4:31:24 PM
> there will always be people who break the law.I find this phrasing choice interesting.
Of course there will always be people who break the law. There are always people who are going to attempt to do things they're not supposed to do for a variety of reasons.
Rule of law is about consistent application of the law. Laws that aren't consistently applied are just words on paper.
It seems to me that what you actually intended to say is "there will always be people who break the law and get away with it due to their wealth and status."
And yes, there will probably always be some degree of that too. But in a society that claims to follow the rule of law, the goal should always be to minimize the inconsistent application of the law. Part of that is challenging these events when we see them. Like the extreme corruption of the Trump administration versus every president that came before, including his own first term.
Treating an increase of corruption as inevitable is not, in my opinion, valuing the rule of law. It's at best a half-hearted "whatcha gonna do?" shrug-off.
by sjsdaiuasgdia
5/21/2026 at 5:45:35 AM
Bro what I'm saying is you're wrong. The US is Not lawless and musk is NOT a psychopath. That's ALL.by threethirtytwo
5/21/2026 at 9:32:49 AM
And I'm saying you have no principled stance on the rule of law.by sjsdaiuasgdia
5/21/2026 at 4:42:24 PM
And your statement is wrong and you know it. I obviously do. You’re just being pedantic.1. You say the US is unlawful
2. I say take a look at every country on the face of the earth. The US is among the least unlawful. That’s the most realistic outlook.
3. You say I have no principled stance on law.
4. Conclusion: someone is stupid, pedantic and completely missing the topic at hand and it’s not me.
by threethirtytwo
5/21/2026 at 6:16:19 PM
You accept drastically increasing corruption as "normal".That is a corrupt world view and you do not care about the rule of law.
by sjsdaiuasgdia
5/20/2026 at 1:05:04 AM
"rules for thee, not for me"by slater
5/19/2026 at 5:52:16 AM
As a straight answer (for 'one') I'm sure we could think a dozen projects that would ameliorate suffering for countless people before breakfast without trying. However I appreciate that's not your point.by vixen99
5/18/2026 at 7:54:36 PM
Getting to Mars, it would seem.by knicholes
5/18/2026 at 9:58:11 PM
I agree we'd all be better off if SpaceX figured out how to send Musk to Mars ASAP.by nicolas_17
5/18/2026 at 8:01:30 PM
Does anyone seriously still believe this? I thought as a society we had realized Musk is simply BSing whatever he feels like until it becomes untenable.by hdndjsbbs
5/18/2026 at 8:14:37 PM
Oh, you mean like:Solar Roof: https://electrek.co/2026/05/14/tesla-solar-roof-promise-vs-r...
Tesla Full Self Driving: https://electrek.co/2026/05/18/musk-unsupervised-fsd-widespr...
Hyperloop / Boring Company mass-transit vision
Mars settlement timelines
X as an everything app
by dogscatstrees
5/18/2026 at 9:48:52 PM
I mean, most of his wealth is coming from his overhyping skill, you can also tell marketing. Or lying.I consider him a visionary in a sense of innovation but he is insecure and immoral one.
Needles to say his investors made money on his over promises.
by hsuduebc2
5/19/2026 at 5:21:04 AM
Does Elon over-hype nearly everything he gets involved with? Clearly yes.Does he also deliver on some mind-boggling timelines? Well Tesla went from delivering its first cars in 2008 to having the best selling car in the world in 2023, and SpaceX went from not having successfully launched a rocket to delivering about 80% of the world's space payload in roughly the same timeframe. So I'd say that's clearly a 'yes', too.
by billti
5/19/2026 at 8:50:53 AM
SpaceX also dropped the cost of kg to space by multiple orders of magnitude, which is a part of the reason they essentially are the space industry now a days. And should Starship deliver we are likely going to be seeing even more orders of magnitude drop in price there.Elon made some political positions (which he has always hinted at in any case) publicly clear, and the divisive nature of politics in the US which has made a rather vocal minority of people just freak out with regards to him. But the reality is that if he died tomorrow, he would already go down as the Thomas Edison of modern times. And he as of yet still has some years to deliver on Mars which could cement a far greater legacy.
by somenameforme
5/19/2026 at 3:33:51 PM
A order of magnitude is a factor of 10x. Multiple orders of magnitude is at least 100x.SpaceX Falcon 9 has a launch cost of 74 M$ with a payload to LEO of 22,800 kg for a launch cost of ~3,200 $/kg to LEO.
So you are incorrectly claiming that space launch costs were 320,000 $/kg. Elon Musk is a habitual liar, but you should try not to be one as well as it demonstrates your argument to be based in ignorance and deception.
by Veserv
5/19/2026 at 5:59:22 PM
Falcon Heavy reusable is the most $ efficient system at around $1500 $/kg. The Space Shuttle costs were $54,000 $/kg. If you want to nitpick that that's "only" a 97% cost reduction instead of a 99%... well that's the sort of good faith debate I've come to expect from the aforementioned vocal minority in any topic related to Elon, and with all the class you've already demonstrated in your post.by somenameforme
5/19/2026 at 6:33:07 PM
Why are you deceptively bringing up the Space Shuttle? That was never intended to be a serious cost-effective launch vehicle. Also, why are you deceptively talking about 97% and 99% like the difference between 30x and 100x is not a factor of 3?The Ariane 5, first launching in 2003 which is 7 years earlier than the first Falcon 9 launch, had a launch cost of ~150 M$ in 2015 with a payload to LEO of ~16,000 kg for a cost of 10,000 $/kg. The Soyuz-2, first launching in 2004 which is 6 years earlier than the first Falcon 9 launch, had a launch cost of ~35 M$ with a payload to LEO of ~8,000 kg for a cost of ~4,500 $/kg.
The truth is 3-6% of your claim of 100x cost improvement.
by Veserv
5/20/2026 at 2:34:00 AM
Because the Space Shuttle is what SpaceX replaced. A 97% discount relative to that is what SpaceX has managed, after a commercial profit margin. 99% is 2 orders of magnitude. So you're here bickering over 2% with all the class that one would expect.by somenameforme
5/20/2026 at 3:23:20 AM
No it did not. Nobody launched their commercial satellites on Space Shuttles. Soyuz, Atlas, Proton, Delta, Long March, Ariane; those are commercial launch vehicles. Even considering crewed missions we can look to ISS crew missions which were half Soyuz missions and then entirely Soyuz missions between 2009-2020.And again, you do not seem to understand how percentages work. If I have a thing that costs 1,000 $ and I find a 99% cost reduction it is now 10 $. A 97% cost reduction means it is 30 $. That is a 3x difference. The difference between 1% and 3% is a factor of 3x. That is half of a order of magnitude right there and here you are claiming it is small.
So you are wrong on history, wrong on comparables, and wrong on math to defend a man who runs a company that is legally, and I quote a actual legal decision: a "greviously reprehensible... grossly racist workplace"[1]. But, you know, racism man good because he slightly lowered the cost of cruise ship internet I guess.
[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06... Page 31.
by Veserv
5/20/2026 at 1:23:16 PM
You're engaging in some wild freak out mental gymnastics here. Seriously, just read your paragraph about me not understanding percents, and tell me you don't get hard-core Chewbacca Defense [1] vibes. It seriously reads not only like satire, but pretty good satire! You just need to add a QED to the end. lolAnd don't trust flatterbots to argue for you. They hallucinate regularly and just make you look more absurd. The Space Shuttle was flying crewed missions to the ISS until 2011. The reason they stopped is because the Space Shuttle had been retired and commercial crew began, which was ultimately won by SpaceX. Well SpaceX and Boeing in an overt act of insiderism, but Boeing is still - 15 years later - trying to figure out how this whole space thingy works.
The alternatives you mention were never commercially viable against SpaceX. All not only cost multiple times more but come with significantly worse reliability records as well as lacking the payload capacity of something like Falcon Heavy for those missions that require it. And when you look at things like the Soyuz, the sticker price doesn't matter so much as the price companies were obligated to pay. They offered cheap internal launches, and charged dramatically higher rates for foreign launchers - including NASA. By the end NASA was paying $90mil/seat.
by somenameforme
5/20/2026 at 4:30:29 PM
Yes, you clearly do not understand how percentages work given that you continue to argue that the difference between 30x and 100x is just "2%".You are correct that there were Space Shuttle missions to the vicinity of the ISS until 2011. I was talking about ISS crew rotation missions where the last Space Shuttle mission was STS-129 in 2009. The Space Shuttle was still used for ISS assembly flights until 2011. I was using crew rotation missions to highlight that not just commercial satellite launches, but also one of the other important class of missions, crew rotation, also regularly used alternatives to the Space Shuttle disproving your point that the Space Shuttle had some sort of magical monopoly on launches and thus the only alternative to compare against.
You were the one arguing that alternatives cost over 100x more than SpaceX. Even deceptively comparing against the Space Shuttle you were still off by a factor of 3x and comparing against actual competitors your claim is off by a factor of 16x-30x. Your claim is egregiously wrong. Continuing to argue it means you are either completely ignorant or utterly biased or both. I am done here.
by Veserv
5/20/2026 at 5:42:22 PM
I said that the difference between a 99% saving and a 97% was 2%. You're the one engaging in freak out mental gymnastics to try to turn that into 'ACTUAAAALLLY... that's like a 300% difference and the proof is that Elon kicked my dog.'And no, I obviously know you're just grabbing nonsense from your flatterbot of choice. The tell tale is being easily confused on basic points, making rather nonsensical statements, being oddly precise about irrelevant esoteric details, and then finding yourself in a situation where you're left trying to recombobulate it all back into something sensical, which you're not quite succeeding at. Your post above is borderline incoherent, even moreso than the 97% to 99% = 300% nonsense.
by somenameforme
5/19/2026 at 11:07:42 AM
> he would already go down as the Thomas Edison of modern timesA small but important correction - he would be similar to Henry Ford, with capitalistic approach to humans that would make Marx shiver and write second Capital book. Also aligns better with his nazi sympathies.
There isn't a single thing he personally invented AFAIK, but he is a good manager from certain angles and can recognize future value in ways entrenched ivy league managers seemingly cannot. Also a textbook sociopath and few other mental issues, and horrible father for those who care (most should, future of mankind and all that).
by kakacik
5/19/2026 at 12:58:57 PM
Henry Ford literally invented the moving assembly line. He's also the primary reason that we now have a 5 day, 40 hour week as the standard. Prior to him (and his successes with trialing such), the typical work week was 6 days, with 10-16 hour shifts common. Marx, by contrast, achieved nothing of value for the common man, and spent his entire life mooching off Engels' capitalistic successes, while critiquing such. It's trivial to critique systems, but quite difficult to create and build things up in a way that is sustainable and means something.As for Musk, he completely revolutionized the space industry. In modern times no single person just invents everything around something akin to e.g. the telegraph, but I don't think that really diminishes his impact. It's just a consequence of the fact that a reusable rocket is much more complex than a telegraph machine. But he's quite infamously involved and directing essentially every single step of the process. This is quite different from the detached and profit/metric motivated focus of typical management, but in many ways it's much closer to how things were 'back in the day' rather than a novel discovery. It should go without saying that people running businesses building 'x' should be deeply knowledgeable about 'x'. "Business", as a specialization in and of itself, in modern times is the disease that's killing America.
by somenameforme
5/19/2026 at 12:57:35 PM
I would argue that 15 years is not a mind-boggling timeline to go from first car to best selling single model (especially given how few models Tesla has).Xiaomi Auto reaching a quarter of Tesla's annual output after four years is much more impressive, given it took Tesla until 2019/2020 (8 years, twice as long) to reach that level.
SpaceX is rather more impressive. Unfortunately for everyone, only someone like Musk could have pulled that off: not just the visionary, but also arrogant and litigious enough to sue the US government to reconsider when the government decided against buying from SpaceX. I'm reminded of the phrase "only Nixon could go to China".
by ben_w
5/18/2026 at 8:11:36 PM
> Does anyone seriously still believe this?I do. It’s not his singular focus. But he continues to personally invest himself in pushing the boundaries of human spacefaring capability. That goal seems more meaningful to him that it does to e.g. Bezos, who seems to have a rocket company to look cool.
by JumpCrisscross
5/18/2026 at 8:59:19 PM
I know there's a risk when Musk's name comes up that everyone takes "all against" or "all for" approach - very polarising figure.But I see a lot of that announcement, and the others someone else pointed to as his "aspirational, but ultimately never going to happen" goals - whether he believes the claims are achievable, or not, he says these things to energise people to working/paying for him to try
It costs him little to nothing to say, and other people's time, effort, and capital to try (and succeed/fail)
Tesla is falling to pieces now, and SpaceX is getting loaded up with completely unrelated projects (xAI) in order to try and make it look saleable (I guess) - it's very difficult to see the Mars announcement as anything but hype.
by awesome_dude
5/18/2026 at 9:33:01 PM
> difficult to see the Mars announcement as anything but hypeOh yeah, the announcement is hype. But there is actual work underneath it making real progress in science and engineering that moves us closer to Mars. Some of that, moreover, is work that has limited appeal outside a Martian context.
by JumpCrisscross
5/19/2026 at 8:48:01 AM
The real thing is that the moon is a better stepping stone, but Bezos already claimed it so Musk had to out do him, which is why he's shooting for Mars.by fragmede
5/19/2026 at 3:03:44 PM
> the moon is a better stepping stone, but Bezos already claimed it so Musk had to out do him, which is why he's shooting for MarsThey were contemporaenous. Musk was trying to send stuff to Mars in 2001 [1]. Bezos started Blue Origin in 2000 before any Moon goals had been made concrete or public. I wouldn't say either of their goals really referenced each other until after the financial crisis (that is, after they were both comfortably billionaires with launch-vehicle programs).
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-elon-musk-spacex/
by JumpCrisscross
5/18/2026 at 9:53:25 PM
> It costs him little to nothing to say,That all depends on how much he values his credibility, I think..
But to be fair, for someone as good at self promotion as he is, I can believe that the value of the hype could be greater than the cost in credibility.
by usefulcat
5/18/2026 at 9:48:10 PM
> Tesla is falling to pieces nowDid I miss something?
by vardump
5/18/2026 at 10:00:22 PM
Year over year sales are declining. Stratospheric stock price is propped up by promise of selling humanoid robots, a technology (and market) which are unproven.I would not invest.
by stickfigure
5/18/2026 at 11:31:23 PM
That's a no, it's business as usual except they have massive cash reserves.by scottyah
5/19/2026 at 12:38:35 AM
Having approximately $44 billion in cash on hand is not a massive cash reserve for any company with the market cap of Tesla ($1.3 trillion). Even less so when you realize how capital intensive its current car and non-existent robot business is… The entire EV market is risky right now for margin compression as Chinese EV manufacturers are really pulling ahead. It’s pretty wild to see just how far they’ve progressed while the west mostly does nothing. Even Tesla hasn’t provided any real innovation in years in regards to their core business. And from what I can tell, they’re pretty much outright ignoring their auxiliary businesses.If Optimus fails to impress, and gain traction, I’d seriously expect Tesla to end up a subsidiary of SpaceX within the next ten years as Elon tries to protect up his net worth.
by rubyn00bie
5/19/2026 at 5:28:39 AM
That's why I think the Optimus thing might make sense from a 'market cap' perspective. Tesla is great at innovation and ramping global manufacturing for new tech. Ten years ago, that was EVs. But now EVs are becoming a commodity and every other car company is catching up.I do think 'self driving' is still their 'moat' when it comes to EVs. I use it every day, and nothing else comes close. But other than that, building EVs is becoming a cut-throat slim-margin business. I don't think that's where Elon, or Tesla employees, want to spend their energy.
by billti
5/19/2026 at 9:54:08 PM
When Tesla was overpromising self-driving cars, the thing they sold was still a pretty nice car. Even without the magical features, customers were still satisfied with the product.Now imagine you're selling robots. If the robot "disengages" and breaks 10% of your plates while emptying the dishwasher, you're going to be pissed. There's no fallback to manual mode. It has to work 100% of the time out the gate.
Based on past history, I don't think Tesla has an engineering culture capable of hitting a home run with this kind of frontier technology out of the gate. So they either delay it until it's ready or they launch it prematurely, in which case everyone mocks it and the dream crashes (along with the stock price).
by stickfigure
5/19/2026 at 1:10:01 PM
Even optimistically (no pun intended), I don't see Optimus justifying the Tesla share price.There's plenty of other companies making robots. Robots can either be controlled by AI or by humans. In the case of humans, there's no moat because everyone can do that. In the case of AI, it can either be on device or on a server, but we're already hitting power supply concerns for data centres, rising prices and supply issues for the components for even local servers, and the historical timeline over which hardware and algorithms have become more energy efficient (and the available power envelope) suggests that on-device AI sufficient for an Optimus to get into a non-self-driving car and drive it at some competence score* happens around a decade after that competence is reached by self-driving cars.
It doesn't even matter if your perception on the relative ranking of different self-drive systems is right or wrong, we're still not yet seeing Tesla vehicles do as Musk said in January 2016:
I think that within two years, you'll be able to summon your car from across the country. It will meet you wherever your phone is
* Any competence score, i.e. 2016 self-drive quality is likely already doable.
by ben_w
5/19/2026 at 8:04:18 PM
> Ten years ago, that was EVs. But now EVs are becoming a commodity and every other car company is catching up.Kind of yes, the competition, especially from China, is catching up, and exceeding Tesla's offers.
Kind of no - EVs were around for a very long time before Tesla, Tesla's sales pitch (at one point) was that it was a software company not a car company.
On that front - almost every vehicle manufacturer has caught up, and Tesla is still stuck /promising/ a self driving car, but still not delivering.
The Twitter acquisition is widely seen as the marking point where Musk lost his appeal - something that was not smart because, coupled with his foray into politics was an attack on his core market - middle class left of centre people who were buying for the environment.. etc
He poisoned his brand, and Tesla's too (because the two brands, his and Tesla's, were so intertwined)
He lost the impetus in European markets, leaving a dying (for him) US market, and Asia (which is largely interested in Chinese made vehicles).
My Anecdata: In Australia, where I am, it used to be Tesla's were fairly common, now, I think I've seen two in the last week, compared to maybe a dozen BYD (and I am in a middle class suburb)
by awesome_dude
5/19/2026 at 2:45:15 AM
> It’s pretty wild to see just how far they’ve progressed while the west mostly does nothing.The “west” came up with Tesla and Rivian, and their cars are on the road. And the US tariffed chinese EVs. What else can be done to combat China’s lower priced labor and possibly more lax environmental regulations?
by lotsofpulp
5/19/2026 at 8:16:43 AM
The west needs to combat it by using subsidies and regulations to “spray and pray,” to a large degree. Just as China has… The problem with the occident, at the moment, is that corporations use the incentives to raise margins and not to innovate.In the US at least we’re gearing up for massive failure in the automotive industry solely because we’re avoiding competition. Yes, there will be margin compression, but without it domestic businesses become inefficient. It’s going to be “80s/90s Detroit” all over again with bigger bailouts because at some point it’ll be too politically popular to reduce prices. When that happens the public will be the ones footing the bill.
And all that says nothing of the fact cheap labor alone doesn’t make a better car. But the fact China can both make a better car (EV) and with lower labor costs really shows how dependent US automakers are on market inefficiencies. The US, and Europe, were massively ahead in quality but that lead been destroyed.
I’m not a fan of capitalism, but if the US is going to sell it and preach it— we might as fucking well embrace it. Otherwise we’re just subsidizing the rich without rhyme or reason (other than blatant corruption and exploitation). The cost of those subsidies will be stagnation, and the outright capitulation of quality long term.
by rubyn00bie
5/19/2026 at 11:06:04 AM
> And all that says nothing of the fact cheap labor alone doesn’t make a better car. But the fact China can both make a better car (EV) and with lower labor costs really shows how dependent US automakers are on market inefficiencies.I don’t understand this. Why would COGS impact quality? Are Chinese people inherently inferior “Western” people?
The market inefficiency is partly the difference in price of labor, which is being made more efficient by Chinese manufacturers succeeding.
by lotsofpulp
5/19/2026 at 8:58:27 PM
I looked it up, and the key thing in favour of companies like BYD over the US companies - isn't (just) cheap labour - it's vertical integration.BYD owns the mines, the batteries, the cars, the USA doesn't have that available, and are having to force other countries to provide their lithium/rare earth deposits to US companies in order to try and become competitive.
by awesome_dude
5/19/2026 at 8:13:32 PM
> The west needs to combat it by using subsidies and regulations> In the US at least we’re gearing up for massive failure in the automotive industry solely because we’re avoiding competition
Uhhh - you want to prevent competition by using subsidies and regulations, but then complain the US companies are not competitive because they avoid competition?
The US vehicle manufacturers have been here multiple times - VW, Japanese "compacts", and now Chinese EVs
The Germans were competing on quality and fuel consumption.
The Japanese were competing on quality and price, they started out naff, and became gold standard, whilst US manufacturers were stuck delivering low rate products.
The Koreans followed the same playbook.
And, now, the Chinese are doing it again, following the Japanese playbook - offering better and better quality at a lower price.
by awesome_dude
5/19/2026 at 4:29:29 AM
Tesla is falling to pieces?by hcurtiss
5/19/2026 at 1:30:56 AM
He slashed tons of basic science funding under DOGE.At one point he was probably sincere but he's been consumed by culture war slop.
by nixon_why69
5/19/2026 at 1:38:46 AM
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48186106by JumpCrisscross
5/19/2026 at 2:56:28 AM
Yeah, but slashing basic science funding isn't a "yes, and", it's more of a "no, but". It goes directly against trying to get to mars.by nixon_why69
5/18/2026 at 9:46:28 PM
What a load of crap. He pushes this narrative purely for valuation purposes.He has a legion of people propping up his stock by manipulating them into believing he is a wizard.
by 4dfg
5/18/2026 at 9:57:42 PM
It’s in his own biography (the older one) that spacex would pursue mars without distraction. That he went to great lengths to ensure it wouldn’t be used for military, tourism, etc.You can’t believe musk without simultaneously believing he’s a liar. It’s in HIS fucking book.
by thejazzman
5/18/2026 at 9:58:41 PM
> It’s in his own biography (the older one) that spacex would pursue mars without distraction. That he went to great lengths to ensure it wouldn’t be used for military, tourism, etc.I said I believe he wants to go to Mars and will put in the work to make that happen. I didn't say everything he's said is true. Musk absolutely lies. But his actions speak pretty consistently to Mars being a real goal.
by JumpCrisscross
5/18/2026 at 9:50:11 PM
This is a joint project of U.S. government military planners and an ostensible private individual. If Elon disappeared, rest assured, the contracts and development would still happen.They want mega constellations for always-on drone guidance and for "golden dome" which would allow for the laser-based shoot-down of long range exo-atmospheric missiles. You need reusable spacecraft to make that tenable. This is not about Mars, don't buy the marketing. At best for civilians, this is about making broadband widely available such that America can dominate internet connectivity going forward and increase spying further. As an example, examine a map of Starlink connectivity, you will notice that Russia and Gaza are excluded.
The Artemis missions will eventually enable the placement of communications equipment on the moon, making anti-satellite weapons less effective at disrupting critical communications.
Fortress America will be invincible forever, so so they desire. The macroeconomics are not working out for them though even though the technological edge is still working for them on that level.
by tehjoker
5/18/2026 at 10:00:13 PM
> They want mega constellations for always-on drone guidance and for "golden dome" which would allow for the laser-based shoot-down of long range exo-atmospheric missilesThis is a conspiracy theory folks who just Googled In-Q-Tel have been stringing together since Covid. It's not true.
> examine a map of Starlink connectivity, you will notice that Russia and Gaza are excluded
Russia wasn't excluded until recently. That was a problem!
> The Artemis missions will eventually enable the placement of communications equipment on the moon, making anti-satellite weapons less effective at disrupting critical communications
Wat.
by JumpCrisscross
5/19/2026 at 1:50:06 AM
> This is a conspiracy theory folks who just Googled In-Q-Tel have been stringing together since Covid. It's not true.??? It's documented that Ukraine is using Starlink extensively.
Golden dome: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/golden-dome-for-america-trump-m...
> Wat.
Communications are an exception to the lunar treaty that governs the militarization of space.
Don't forget that the original space program was designed to peacefully demonstrate a high degree of control over ICBM class rockets. They're so good and accurate, we can put a human on top of one. The government does not spend huge amounts of money on things like "art" or "science" without a motivating factor. This is the capitalist empire, not socialism.
by tehjoker
5/19/2026 at 1:27:55 PM
I believe the "Wat." is directed at the mandated-by-laws-of-physics fact that it adds a 2.6 second lag, and that at constant path loss and frequency it requires antennas have 768 times larger diameter (or close enough, the maths works out that it's the distance to moon divided by distance to wherever in LEO your default case is and all the other things involved cancel out).This factor (and that it applies to all EM including both radio and optical) is also why we had to wait for lunar orbiter missions to get photos of the Apollo landing sites rather than take a picture with Hubble.
Oh, and then there's the problem with the moon having much longer and much darker nights than anywhere on Earth that isn't the [ant]arctic circle, though I have previously opined that anyone who isn't ready to put a few thousand tons of aluminium onto the moon and make a circumpolar power line *simply isn't ready for any plan like this in the first place*.
And the fact that there's only one moon, so half the planet doesn't get any signal from it at any given time.
by ben_w
5/19/2026 at 4:21:24 PM
These are good points. I don't really understand your point about the Hubble though that is very interesting. Are you saying that the pictures are too low-res?Still, in the case of massive destruction of satellite communications, having 50% availability for crucial communications (e.g. continuity of government) etc. isn't ideal but is still something. 2.6 second lag is nothing if you aren't talking about real-time communications. Issuing strategic military orders isn't sensitive to 2.6 seconds of lag.
You can communicate to half the earth at once, you can maybe replace GPS if all the GPS sats are shot down, etc. Your point about large antennas is taken, but for USG installations, I don't doubt they would invest in a few large antennas.
by tehjoker
5/19/2026 at 7:06:45 PM
> These are good points. I don't really understand your point about the Hubble though that is very interesting. Are you saying that the pictures are too low-res?Yes. Owing to the laws of physics, the size of the optics and the wavelengths of its sensors, it is limited to a minimum feature size on the moon of about 22 meters (which happens at the limit of it's ultraviolet sensor range, 115 nm, not visible light). To see the Apollo lander as a single pixel, it would need to have a primary mirror with an 11 metre diameter, to see footprints it would need one with a diameter of 150-200m metres. And proportionally even bigger than that for longer wavelengths such as visible light.
> Still, in the case of massive destruction of satellite communications, having 50% availability for crucial communications (e.g. continuity of government) etc. isn't ideal but is still something. 2.6 second lag is nothing if you aren't talking about real-time communications. Issuing strategic military orders isn't sensitive to 2.6 seconds of lag.
Or you could just use all the stuff on the ground. We used radio well before we went to space, and if the cable-based stuff (and line-of-sight microwave towers) isn't secure then neither is the even more critical power grid.
If you're willing to give up real-time comms, then we have a lot of bandwidth available for text messages that's currently being spent on TV.
> You can communicate to half the earth at once, you can maybe replace GPS if all the GPS sats are shot down, etc.
Nope. GPS fundamentally requires you can see at least four different satellites at the same moment. Also, they're in geosynchronous orbit not low orbit, there are at present no reported anti-satellite weapons that can get to geostationary orbit, nor would this be likely due to the energy budget needed to get there. Consider that while getting to LEO essentially requires the equivalent of an intercontinental missile, getting to geostationary requires the equivalent of such a missile whose payload is itself another intercontinental missile.
> Your point about large antennas is taken, but for USG installations, I don't doubt they would invest in a few large antennas.
I think you've not quite taken on board what I said.
768 times larger diameter.
Diameter, not area.
If your ground station is 1 meter across, like some satellite dishes I see, one 768 times larger is about the size of The Pentagon building and its surrounding car park.
While I look forward to us being able to build structures that size (and bigger) on the moon, the SpaceX website for Starship is currently listing prices to the moon of $100 million per metric ton.
by ben_w
5/19/2026 at 7:36:50 PM
Informative, thank you.by tehjoker
5/18/2026 at 9:35:29 PM
> pushing the boundaries of human spacefaring capabilityI guess polluting space with shitty satellites and causing environmental disasters with failed and questionably-permitted rocket launches is, technically, pushing on boundaries of human spacefaring capability.
by 48terry
5/18/2026 at 9:42:34 PM
> guess polluting space with shitty satellites and causing environmental disasters with failed and questionably-permitted rocket launches is, technically, pushing on boundaries of human spacefaring capabilityMy cat is both cute and fluffy as well as a menace.
by JumpCrisscross
5/18/2026 at 11:38:58 PM
I mean, I really dislike what Musk has become but SpaceX has brought about a huge leap in access to space. Last year they launched more than the rest of the world combined, including the rest of the US. They now own more operating satellites than the rest of the world combined. When the rest of the Western world's launchers have had problems over the last few years (Ariane, Vulcan, EU Soyuz, New Glenn, Antares) SpaceX has been able to absorb their payloads with relative ease rather than waiting many years for other arrangements. They've saved the US many $Bs in launch costs by undercutting the incumbent monopoly. Cheaply and easily reusing a rocket was thought impossible, now it's routine and every rocket maker on earth is attempting to copy them.by thinkcontext
5/19/2026 at 12:34:01 AM
If you look at their filings, they are now pivoting into an "AI company". (Meaning, that's where the majority of their future value is described as coming from.) It's possible that this is a harmless investor swindle and they'll keep relentlessly innovating. But you should probably be worried.by matthewdgreen
5/19/2026 at 1:03:00 PM
Some things fail but the EVs and rockets have done well. Also Starlink.by tim333
5/19/2026 at 2:48:04 AM
Musk is like that person on Facebook you know that is really good at <welding / programming / performing surgeries / etc> then they post about their thoughts on some other topic and all you can respond with is “stay in your lane.”Musk has been successful is pure engineering efforts led by engineers he hired achieving the next big-but-not-too-big step.
You ignore his thoughts on everything else.
by harrall
5/19/2026 at 12:28:09 PM
Or... you maintain some moral integrity, and consider him POS despite all his deliveries. People clearly can be great and horrible at the same time, why the desperate need to paint everything black & white and ignore all the fine details of reality.These people are all about massive ego trips and legacies. So let them build their legacy as they truly were with all the + and -, not some idealized, simplified image. Truth always deserves to be told, however inconvenient. Sort of moral imperative of a moral human being if you want.
by kakacik
5/19/2026 at 1:20:56 AM
I genuinely believe he wants to go to Mars. Desperately.He's fundamentally a very smart socially inept largely sociopathic emotionally immature obsessively driven boy who read a lot of Heinlein as a kid. Everything about him indicates he sees himself as a saviour of humanity and the only person who has their priorities right and everybody should appreciate and adore him and it's so darn frustrating when they don't, oh wait this other party will adore me, now they don't anymore either oh HUMbug.
Do I believe any of his promises? No absolutely not. But I do think Mars is his massive obsession and that he fervently (If completely Implausibly) believes it'll work and help humanity.
by NikolaNovak
5/19/2026 at 2:33:57 PM
Also Project Mars: A Technical Tale maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mars:_A_Technical_TaleIt features a leader called the Elon who Musk may have been partly named after. (https://www.mind-war.com/p/the-elon-how-a-nazi-rocket-scient...)
by tim333
5/19/2026 at 1:34:28 PM
Which is why we should start using 'greed' as the primary way we talk about this sort of person."Greediest man in the world Elon Musk..." "Captains of Greed" instead of "Captains of Industry" "Larry Ellison, notable for his legendary greed,"
by sjsdaiuasgdia
5/18/2026 at 8:47:29 PM
To build more cool stuff. Would be great if he did neurolink for cancerby DoesntMatter22
5/18/2026 at 10:31:40 PM
Every <unit of currency> not in your pocket is in someone else’s. Greedy narcissists can’t stand that, they need to have it all. They don’t need the extra 500 billion to spend it, they need it so the number goes up. They need to be number one. At everything. Remember when Musk lied about being one of the top players for some difficult video game, then it turned out he was paying someone else to play for him? It’s just an ego thing, which I agree is baffling.by latexr
5/19/2026 at 12:14:40 AM
Yeah, but lets practice some empathy.Starting point: money can't buy happiness.
So what to do to be happy? Extreme wealth removes most practical goals like buying things or going places and doing things. Not that you can't do them, but it's not a meaningful goal to work towards.
They have to create their own meaning, whatever that is.
A billionaire trying to create purpose for themselves can be boring, or weird. Which one gets media coverage?
Gates Foundation, Zukerberg's fitness craze, MacKenzie Scott's philanthropy, Bezos and Musk's [whateverness] are all just variations on a theme. And like all people, some will be better at it than others.
Note though, that they will do what it takes to stay wealthy because what would they be without that?
by _carbyau_
5/19/2026 at 12:30:32 AM
Greedy narcissists are lacking in empathy, that’s what makes them greedy narcissists.That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be empathetic, of course. Someone else’s lack of empathy does not excuse our own. However, consider that billionaires mostly reach that status by exploiting others. Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, they all fit that mould. Being empathetic does not mean being a chump. I’m not going to shed a tear for the poor exploitative billionaire who underpays and overworks people to the point they literally die on the floor of their warehouses and others around them are ordered to keep working.
If given the choice to defend the one billionaire who is fucking up the world and billions of lives in the process, or those who are being exploited by said billionaire, I think it’s obvious where one should place their empathy.
It’s not my responsibility, or yours, or anyone but themselves, that they can’t find meaning in life without being massive assholes. Use some of that money to go to therapy. Use it to enhance the lives of others around you, improve your community and you improve your own well being. It’s not that hard, we’ve known for a long time that a way to happiness is to do things for others.
Musk himself has lamented that money does not buy happiness, and after that expressed the desire to become the first trillionaire. I mean, come on…
by latexr
5/19/2026 at 12:48:43 AM
I wasn't trying to say all billionaires deserve an outpouring of defence for their actions. Merely that their actions are as human as the rest of us, just in a different context.And like the rest of us, there are those who cope better or worse, who are morally better or worse. Police are another bunch of people judged similarly.
Which is to say, there are indeed woeful billionaires. Possibly most of them. But don't paint the humans all with the same brush, even if the way to fix society might be to do so legally.
by _carbyau_
5/19/2026 at 8:05:08 AM
> But don't paint the humans all with the same brushBut that’s not what I did. From the very first post I was explicit in mentioning greedy narcissists. Obviously that doesn’t mean everyone in every group, it means the greedy narcissists. That’s why the adjectives exist, to distinguish some from the others.
I’m not sure I’m getting your point, because I don’t really see where the disagreement lies.
by latexr
5/19/2026 at 1:20:57 PM
> Extreme wealth removes most practical goals like buying things or going places and doing things.Sorry can't agree on this at all. Helping others feels amazing to any sane human being. Doing sports is similar. Experiencing adrenaline sports is similar. Focusing on raising one's kids properly is always exceptionally well-spent time, and feels great if one is not burned out and has some help against overloading with responsibilities. Thats a plenty of meaning for one's life, regardless of fortune.
The fact is, most of those billionaires are broken human beings - various mental issues, imbalances, maniacally competitive, often sociopaths. They can't achieve what society calls 'happiness', regardless of amount of money spent. So they into various status ego competitive 'games'.
I am pretty sure we all met such people in our lives if you looked close enough, I certainly did. Ie one girl I dated even outright laughed at happiness being my life goal, she was such a mess and knew it she rather openly focused on career and money, those were at least somewhat achievable for her. Its logical - if you can't achieve something important, you focus on next best thing, however inferior it may be. And if one surrounds oneself with the right people, one is not constantly reminded how it actually sucks and there is no force in universe to change that.
by kakacik
5/18/2026 at 11:33:20 PM
[flagged]by scottyah
5/19/2026 at 12:24:06 AM
Fool here. What’s the small bit of research I need to do?by napkin
5/19/2026 at 7:22:43 PM
Money is created, it's not a fixed sum (as we can tell from inflation) and it's just meant to equate to value added/produced by people. Here's a good starting point:by scottyah
5/18/2026 at 8:12:26 PM
Because he is an addict and one of his addictions is moneyby lovich
5/18/2026 at 8:29:32 PM
Maybe he trying to collect every waifu from every gacha game. That would get expensive in a hurry.by testplzignore
5/18/2026 at 8:25:04 PM
Because money is just a proxy for power, and the goal is not to have cash, it is to have power. Perhaps via being able to make decisions at various businesses, or being able to travel to a different planet, or being able to influence other people, etc.Could also partly be a curiosity to see what one is capable of, or maybe wanting to be known for helming an organization that accomplishes xyz.
by lotsofpulp
5/18/2026 at 8:04:07 PM
Why did he need a second 250 billion after the first 250 billion? Makes me think of a inverted Zeno's paradox.Why do you need an extra dollar?
I can answer for myself: New Zealand plans to tax the shit out of anyone that has more[A].
You need a fukton more than median wealth to be able to protect yourself against your own government.
The type of person that enjoys chasing money doesn't stop.
[A] via capital gains taxes and wealth taxes. Also one needs an excessive amount more to handle progressive taxation and means testing.
by robocat
5/18/2026 at 9:00:32 PM
> I can answer for myself: New Zealand plans to tax the shit out of anyone that has more[A].New Zeeland is an outlier in that it doesn't have capital gains tax.
Its not the end of the world to have captial gains tax.
by KaiserPro
5/18/2026 at 10:30:53 PM
CGT is fine.I wasn't trolling, but I have unfortunately deviated from the topic.
What isn't fine is my belief that I'm going to be rug-pulled by my government. From multiple sources I believe New Zealand will tax most savings to smithereens. The lie is that I should save for retirement; when any savings will be taken from me over time via a variety of mechanisms including taxes.
Both our Labour (leftish) and National parties will screw me.
The underlying issue is that our demographics leave little choice to the government. The majority of voters are naturally happy to take everything from everyone who has more than them. Voters are selfish.
Attacking the successful is called the tall-poppy syndrome down here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome (I'm nowhere near successful enough for much backlash - but I do fear it).
I was trying to make a argument based on marginal economics. NZ should be encouraging me to increase my income from export earnings: instead it drastically discourages me. I helped found a startup, so I deeply understand the multiple ways our government discourages us from earning export income. My marginal utility from an extra dollar is already drastically diminished because I already have enough to enjoy my life. The >40% taxation on top (incl GST) reduces my motivation to earn money for NZ to nearly zero. I am not a money chaser and I dislike investing.
After some threshold, money as a marginal value becomes meaningless because other non-monetary factors like politics dominate. It seems like nobody cares how much society profits from you - they only care about their own selfish goals.
by robocat
5/18/2026 at 9:23:43 PM
It’s also not the end of the world to not have capital gains tax.by ericmay
5/18/2026 at 8:41:52 PM
Why did you turn that into a whine about a tax that exists in 31 of 38 OECD economies?Go to Australia where you pay a stamp duty for buying (to pay for infra) and a CGT for selling
Edit: Changed stamp tax to stamp duty
by awesome_dude
5/18/2026 at 11:27:07 PM
I want extra money so I can pay for simple things like food and pay my mortgage and send my kid to a school, and help family members out.Realistically I probably need $5m and I'd be set for life.
If I had $10m instead of $5m I don't see how my life would meaningfully change.
by abustamam
5/18/2026 at 11:38:09 PM
That's the difference between builders and consumers. People who are mostly consumers have a realistic number where they could stop contributing to society. Smalltime builders can imagine a lot of wealth, but at a certain point don't want to get too big. Big Dreamers are only limited by what they can imagine and make happen, and only infinite capital, labor, and time could achieve their dreams. Once you surround yourself with people dreaming of humans as multiplanetary, earthly levels of labor and wealth are obviously not going to make it happen.by scottyah
5/19/2026 at 12:26:21 AM
Hmm... I think I could be set for life with, like, $1m.Obviously age, family, lifestyle and current savings matter.
by mc3301
5/19/2026 at 1:31:35 AM
As long as all the basics are paid for house, car, know how to cook maybe have a small garden and no other debt you probably can.by Danox
5/19/2026 at 5:50:34 AM
I used to think that. A simple home. Plus a basic middle class income - to cover necessities and a some extra disposableincome. I figured 1 million for a home and 1 million for investments. Nothing too flash, just cover the basics.The National NZ median house price is about NZD800k, and the Christchurch average estimated value is about NZD800k. That's about how much I spent in a less desirable suburb (Brighton). And I will have to downsize when I reach 65 because otherwise progressive council taxes (rates) and insurance will drawdown my savings too quickly.
We don't have social security in New Zealand: the government takes our taxes and has paid past retirees superannuation (NZD500 per week). But I'm unlikely to receive that: our government must renege on the expectation because the demographics are unaffordable (tweaking multiple constraints to fuck me - e.g. introducing means testing so that if you save you lose).
In theory we could grow our economy. But our government doesn't understand how to create economic growth via good incentives. I know that because my personal incentives are totally out of economic whack (I'm the perfect demographic for a second startup). I have acquaintances who are living in cars, and their incentives are also completely fucked.
You simply can't look at what your retirees do now and make any projection based on that: governments have to pull the rug on you.
House prices depend on the next generation signing up for ever bigger mortgages (such that their interest payments eat the majority of their income). When the music stops, homeowner's expectations will be screwed.
In New Zealand we prop up our economy using immigrants: but that is an unsustainable engine.
New Zealand is increasing taxes faster than investments accrue. We have a 5% wealth tax on owning overseas shares worth more than NZD50000 in total. Investment gains are taxed at 30% or more - e.g. dividends or investment funds.
We currently have a partial CGT on property, and the CGT will take more and more of property gains (perhaps a good thing to discourage property investors?).
In the past in Christchurch residential property generally stayed ahead of inflation by about 1.5%–3% per year in real terms. A CGT of ~30% could easily make that return nothing. That's the norm in New Zealand: work hard, take risks, get no reward. Need luck.
Individually the taxes (and costs such as insurance) appear reasonable, but they screw any hope of using compounding to maintain a reasonable drawdown. A 4% drawdown could absolutely fuck you if you have the bad luck to live a little longer. See https://paulgraham.com/wtax.html
Getting taxed at an unsustainable rate is probably unavoidable without radically changing one's life or taking extreme risks. I had thought 1 million savings would be enough with compounding, but it is clear our government wants to take a massive bite of any investment gains such that you have wasted time and effort, and your investment risks may have no gains.
We have socialised healthcare, but I think we are heading towards the same reality as the US where you likely have to make yourself broke before getting any help (and the help will be more constrained).
The current retirees get financial and healthcare benefits that I will never ever get. Even though many retirees live on extremely meagre means.
It doesn't matter how much I give to the NZ economy: I believe my politicians when they propose measures to take my rewards from me. I use my engineering to be realistic. I'm not yet a hardened cynic (although perhaps I'm slowly being trained to believe that world view).
I understand the economics of my country better than most.
Most people don't want to see reality. Most people look at what current retirees get, and then assume they will get the same... We aren't being lied to. It is just collectively we all hope too much and trust too much.
by robocat
5/18/2026 at 9:01:22 PM
Yeah, no, this is bullshit.You can't just apply One Simple Rule like this ("more money is always better" / "more money never makes a difference"). There is, objectively, an amount of money above which another dollar, or another billion, will never make a meaningful difference in your overall lifestyle[0].
The amount isn't a single bright line, but like with so many things, there's an area below it where extra money unquestionably improves your quality of life, and an area above it where it unquestionably doesn't.
[0] unless "your lifestyle" involves manipulating major governments and controlling the way people the world over think, which I wouldn't consider a legitimate part of "lifestyle"
by danaris
5/19/2026 at 12:12:39 PM
Right. But why does everyone assume that a billionaire continues to work for the money? Besides, he doesn’t “work” for the money. He’s the primary shareholder in companies that he founded and funded. He gets another billion and another billion when everyone else puts an increasing value on his shares. Even if Elon “retired,” he’d still continue to get richer.by drob518
5/18/2026 at 8:32:04 PM
"Why did he need a second 250 billion after the first 250 billion"because thats another 250 billion less for a competitor to use against you.
by rolph
5/18/2026 at 10:39:26 PM
That is zero-sum thinking.I'm not sure how one can learn to see the world in a more positive light...
by robocat
5/18/2026 at 11:41:49 PM
I'd argue that if we don't abstract away resource usage behind currency, we are pretty firmly in negative-sum territory and zero-sum is a pretty rose colored glasses way of looking at things that is currently obscuring us from pending horrors.These people aren't satisfied with themselves having more, everyone else must have less too.
Not that I am interested in changing your mind on this. I would, though, encourage you to actually say it's "positive-sum" if that's what you believe instead of hinting and then being vague about it for some reason.
by jfyi
5/18/2026 at 8:09:15 PM
> Why did he need a second 250 billion after the first 250 billion?Because billionaires are mentally unwell.
by jamiek88
5/19/2026 at 12:11:51 AM
I think this is missing the main point that Musk was never the owner of OpenAI, neither was Sam, nor the employees. The owners are the American people. I presume Musk got a tax rebate from his donation, courtesy of the taxpayer; so did every other donor.The fact is, OpenAI was a non-profit belonging to the public and it was appropriated by the donors... Who already got their tax cuts.
This is setting a precedent that if you donate a certain amount of money to a charity, you can later convert it to a for-profit and claim to be an owner of the charity... On the basis of 'donations' which you got a tax rebate from. Very convenient.
OpenAI donors should have created a new, separate, for-profit entity completely distinct from OpenAI, with a different name, poached the original employees, implemented all the logic from scratch, collected all the training data from scratch... This would have been correct. Basically what Anthropic did seems more like the correct way.
by jongjong
5/19/2026 at 1:12:17 AM
OpenAI Foundation is a corporation established in Delaware. It has received it's 501(c)3 status from the IRS which means donations are deductible to the fullest extent of the law (or some such; it's been a long time since I've had to write that). The American people do not own the foundation.As for the OpenAI that is a public benefits corporation, I know nothing about all the ins and outs of that type of corporation.
by susiecambria
5/19/2026 at 12:54:40 PM
No one owns a nonprofit, so your analogy is fundamentally incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of how nonprofits work.It is actually extremely important that no one “owns” a nonprofit in the way shareholders own a corporation. A nonprofit has no equity owners. It has directors/officers with fiduciary duties, and its assets must be used consistently with its charitable/public-benefit purpose.
But to be clear, that is in no way equivalent, even metaphorically, to it being "owned by the public".
“Public benefit” does not mean “whatever the median taxpayer would vote for” or “whatever the government currently approves of.” It includes many causes supported by small, unpopular, eccentric, religious, ideological, scientific, or advocacy-oriented communities, so long as the organization fits within an exempt purpose and does not operate for impermissible private benefit.
simple examples can easily elucidate this. One can found a nonprofit for a purpose that society generally disagree with. For instance: - a nonprofit to advocate for the rights of hemorrhagic fevers as living organisms - nonprofit museum devoted to preserving a deeply unpopular ideology’s historical artifacts - a nonprofit to educate the public about an eccentric scientific theory - a nonprofit advocating for legal recognition of some fringe moral concern
All of these could be legitimate nonprofits under the law, even though we may deeply disagree with them. This is by design.
by ryan_j_naughton
5/20/2026 at 12:09:01 AM
IMO, those arguments are grasping for specific definitions of 'ownership'. In its essence, the non-profit structure represents the concept of 'public ownership' to the fullest extent possible under the law. Of course, it's missing some characteristics typically associated with private ownership but it has the core component which is "It should serve the public" which mirrors the idea that a corporation should "Serve its shareholders."I think if the non-profit retained over 50% of the shares of the for-profit subsidiary, a case could have been made that the public-benefit aspect is still dominant. But with only a 26% stake, that argument cannot be made.
by jongjong
5/19/2026 at 1:40:22 AM
The intellectual property (code, data) was transferred from the nonprofit to the for-profit for about $60M, which is what an independent firm hired to assess the value said the IP was worth in late 2018 / early 2019. The nonprofit itself was never converted to a for-profit, and indeed remains a nonprofit to this day.The $60M in IP has grown to about a $200B stake in the OpenAI for-profit.
by granzymes
5/19/2026 at 11:26:52 AM
So you're saying that the non-profit (OpenAI Foundation) owns a certain percentage of the for-profit (OpenAI Corporation)?by trivo
5/19/2026 at 1:07:28 PM
The easiest way to think about this is to globally replace "non-profit" with "tax-vehicle". These things are all kinds of company. They just created the company in a tax efficient (for them) way.by dboreham
5/19/2026 at 12:30:15 AM
I don't understand your reasoning here. You seem to be suggesting that non-profits are owned by the American people?Is there some part of this that I'm missing where this was true of OpenAI at some point?
by marcus_holmes
5/19/2026 at 12:34:52 AM
I'm using the term 'owners' loosely here, but this is a much more reasonable interpretation than the interpretation that the donors are the owners.by jongjong
5/19/2026 at 1:20:22 AM
I don't think you understand how non-profits work. Essentially they are exactly the same as for-profits, except they can't issue dividends. Ownership works exactly the same as for-profit companies.A cynical take is that non-profits are for-salary; they still pay their owners, just using other means.
edit: no, my bad, apparently I misunderstood how non-profits work in the USA. Thanks for the correction :)
by marcus_holmes
5/19/2026 at 1:25:50 AM
This is not correct. jongjong is correct that a nonprofit does not have owners in the sense that a for-profit has owners. Nonprofits are dedicated to their mission, and are run by a board of directors.You cannot have a % ownership in a nonprofit because its resources must be used exclusively to carry out its mission. You could have a % control in its decision making process.
by granzymes
5/19/2026 at 8:26:10 AM
Well, its resources can be used to pay giant salaries. That's somehow not against its mission.And businesses with owners can be dedicated to their mission.
And public businesses are run by a board of directors.
The main difference isn't what you're saying, which is somewhat subject to interpretation. It's just that people can't invest money with expectation of a return, other than via employment, speaking fees, etc etc.
by philipallstar
5/19/2026 at 3:23:28 AM
They're correct about the equity ownership bit, but not in their argument that there's an implicit public claim of control.by tptacek
5/19/2026 at 8:30:16 AM
Even more true given the mixture of the regularity of extremely high executive compensation in non-profits paired alongside the distribution of revenue through extremely inefficient contracting.For an example of the former, the previous head head of Mozilla received a compensation that rose from about 2 million a year to nearly 7 million a year following hundreds of layoffs due to declining revenues. For an example of the latter, following the earthquake in Haiti, the American Red Cross raised nearly half a billion dollars. After all was said and done, they built a total of 6 homes. [1]
Basically, non-profit is a tax-status with conditions. But those conditions are sufficiently unenforceable or side steppable that it's ultimately just a tax status. And the whole game of OpenAI being nonprofit until profits started rolling in is just making this even more clear.
[1] - https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...
by somenameforme
5/18/2026 at 7:25:51 PM
I'm unfamiliar with the US legal system but do they really need a jury and a trial to determine whether the claims are barred by the statute of limitations? Couldn't this be decided by a judge before trial?by bambax
5/18/2026 at 7:35:02 PM
Part of the Statute of Limitations isn't just on when he filed the claim, but when he found out or should have found out, by reasonable diligence that he had a claim at all.So the question before the jury has a significant component of "Should he have found out by this time?" Which is a question of fact, and facts are typically decided by juries, in the US at least.
The two parties can agree together to let a judge decide facts like this, but generally, if one or the other party wants it to go to a jury, it does.
I'm guessing part of Musk's strategy was to have it go to the jury, which are often seen as easier to manipulate than judges, especially when a case is weak. Or perhaps his team already knew this particular judge would be inclined to rule against him, so did the next best thing.
by compiler-guy
5/19/2026 at 1:37:52 AM
Also, it's worth pointing out that the jury was obviously correct. Musk was lying his ass off. There is no possible way to imagine that Elon Musk, the hyper-online dude obsessed with news, AI, and AI news, would not be aware of the well-publicized events of a company he was personally massively invested in.by CobrastanJorji
5/19/2026 at 1:53:14 PM
I'm having a hard time squaring this view with the prediction markets. 500k+ of volume on Polymarket[0] had Elon losing at only even odds until March, 2:1 until May 15th, and 3:1 before the verdict dropped.It seems to have been widely reported from the start[1] and throughout[2] that the statute of limitations was a key thing Musk's team had to prove. If it was so clear, why did people think this case had legs?
[0] https://polymarket.com/event/will-elon-musk-win-his-case-aga... [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/musk-lawsuit-over-o... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/05/14/technology/openai-tr...
by unholiness
5/19/2026 at 5:26:25 PM
Postulate: Prediction markets are not exceptionally good at predicting everything.by IAmBroom
5/19/2026 at 7:46:20 PM
If Prediction markets were good at predicting anything, there would be no need for prediction markets (because the future is already clear to everyone).by awesome_dude
5/19/2026 at 6:55:56 PM
Prediction markets depend on the "wisdom of crowds", but often the crowd doesn't exercise its wisdom--which is generally pretty good--but instead exercises its wishful thinking or desires.cf: Sports betting.
by compiler-guy
5/19/2026 at 4:33:22 PM
A lot of people on polymarket thinking something is the case is probably evidence that it's not.https://www.google.com/search?q=percentage+of+people+who+los...
by lesuorac
5/18/2026 at 7:48:00 PM
Elon argued that even though the events in question took place sometime between 2017 and 2020 OpenAI intentionally hid the information from him until 2022-2023 which is why he wasn't able to file the lawsuit until 2024.That's what the jury found against - they said he was reasonably informed enough to have brought the suit earlier and thus the 3 year clock should start ticking in 2020 not 2023.
by CSMastermind
5/18/2026 at 7:33:28 PM
In the US, judges make determinations of law, but juries (in a jury trial at least) must evaluate the evidence to make findings of fact. So the jury would need to make a finding as to when the statute of limitations started ticking based on the evidence, and the judge then makes the legal determination that the statutory period has lapsed.by mrhottakes
5/18/2026 at 7:44:41 PM
In the American system juries figure out questions of fact and judges figure out questions of law.In this case I guess the question was 'when did the incident actually happen' with Elon arguing it was later then Altman.
by cwmma
5/18/2026 at 11:09:35 PM
In the US (I believe all common law systems), the jury is the trier of fact. If there is a genuine factual dispute between the two parties in a lawsuit, then that dispute is resolved by a jury (unless the parties opt-out).Statutes of limitations are usually not tried by juries because the underlying facts that cause them to kick in are usually not in actual dispute. Instead a fight over statute of limitation is more likely to be over which statute applies or whether some other mitigating circumstance is kicking in, which are matters of law which do not go to a jury.
by jcranmer
5/19/2026 at 4:27:01 PM
I'll piggyback and I'll ask a hypothetical question: imagine a scenario where there's a jury out there and the lawyers proved something almost perfectly, as perfect as something proven by lawyers can get. Now jury goes to deliberate/discuss and for some reason unanimously decides to rule in a way that goes totally against that proof provided - for any reason (maybe just for the kicks, ignore that; because I guess it is ignored). What happens then? Can a judge say to that "bugger off, this is bs" or something like that instead offer their own judgement or have another jury or so? Or is it - tough luck, jury is jury, deal with it. And they can appeal if there's scope of appeal (don't know how that is decided whether one can appeal or not to begin with).by crossroadsguy
5/19/2026 at 7:50:51 PM
I think that there have been such instances - (I can only speculate, but I think that) the judge can rule a mistrial, or it can be heard on appeal.Ah google to the rescue:
> In the U.S., a jury’s factual findings can only be challenged post-trial if an appellate court or trial judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached that verdict based on the evidence.
And
Civil Cases - (Judgment as a Matter of Law / JNOV): Governed by Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a judge can overturn a jury’s factual finding if the evidence is legally insufficient to support it.
Criminal Cases - (Insufficiency of the Evidence): Under the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy clause, an acquittal cannot be appealed or overturned. However, after a guilty verdict, a defendant can file a motion challenging the evidence, asserting that the facts do not support the conviction
by awesome_dude
5/20/2026 at 2:23:35 AM
Things like that have happened before.It’s called Jury Nullification.
More info below:
by ViktorRay
5/18/2026 at 7:34:07 PM
In this case the judge determined that it did require a trial and refused to dismiss based on statute of limitations.by prepend
5/19/2026 at 11:35:20 AM
There was a way that the statute of limitations hadn't run out as the clock started when Elon became aware of OpenAI's shift to for-profit ambitions. That made it more subjective of a judgement than simply reading a calendar, so it went to a jury to determine when Elon knew OpenAI started planning to change structure to be for-profit, then they could look at a calendar.by modriano
5/19/2026 at 4:55:44 AM
Bit late, but since I don’t see any correct answers here - no a jury is not required here. The judge chose to convene an *advisory* jury here — likely to strengthen the factual findings of the court and maybe to save the court itself some time/effort.by qyph
5/18/2026 at 10:41:44 PM
If it’s a very clear fact yes a judge can make the call. In this case what Musk knew was part of that and a jury then had to make the call on what the fact was.by duxup
5/18/2026 at 9:18:40 PM
That's like saying can't the Judge decide who the killer was when he literally saw the video of shooting.by ai-x
5/18/2026 at 9:25:45 PM
Or like if a piece of evidence was obtained lawfully?I can understand why people and me included might think they can decide this before trial.
by dnnddidiej
5/19/2026 at 12:21:15 AM
These days, video evidence can be called into doubt pretty easilyby chubot
5/19/2026 at 12:57:40 AM
One still need to decide:- if the video is real (not AI / edited / another event)
- if the subject the same person (twins, look alike, too bury to tell)
etc
by j16sdiz
5/18/2026 at 10:28:37 PM
It’s quite an odd ruling given that OpenAI completed its for profit “conversion” last fall.It seems the biggest value loss to the nonprofit was in this conversion, not in the initial for profit subsidiary creation giving investors capped profit shares.
by az226
5/18/2026 at 10:47:29 PM
But this "conversion" was apparently not the focus of the suit, according to OP. Perhaps it occurred after they initiated legal proceedings?by metalliqaz
5/18/2026 at 11:02:57 PM
Correct, Musk based his claims on the 2023 Microsoft deal.The 2025 recapitalization was discussed at trial, but it was ancillary since all that changed was the existing for-profit changed from a capped-profit with weird cash flow mechanics to a traditional public benefit corp with ordinary equity.
by granzymes
5/18/2026 at 11:06:46 PM
It is possible for Musk to appeal, but success is vanishingly unlikely.He doesn't have to win to succeed.
The richest man on the planet can keep his enemies tied up in court needlessly until the day he dies.
by reaperducer
5/19/2026 at 1:41:27 AM
The guy he's suing is also a billionaire who can keep his enemies tied up in court needlessly until the day he dies, although that billionaire's net worth is only around 1% of Elon Musk's, so in a sense you're right that Musk is picking on the little guy.by CobrastanJorji
5/19/2026 at 1:24:44 AM
Or just ruin their already shaky reputations.by overgard
5/20/2026 at 5:55:00 AM
I assumed it was trash already.by danny_codes
5/19/2026 at 12:22:08 AM
> Musk lost today because the jury found that he waited too long to bring his claims.I think Musk's lawyers told him he'd probably lose this suit before he filed it. I suspect he proceeded mostly out of spite and to embarrass Altman by ensuring the concerns even his friends had about his candor and trustworthiness went on the record and were splashed across the media. Musk knew he had little chance of unwinding the theft of a non-profit (and I doubt he cared much about that).
It would have been much better if Musk had actually cared enough about OAI's original mission to bring suit in 2019. However, I'm still glad Musk did this now because Altman and Brockman (with the help of MSFT and others) DID steal a non-profit, or at least subverted it's mission. And this fleeting bit of public embarrassment (funded by Musk for other spiteful reasons) is the only penalty they'll ever see.
by mrandish
5/18/2026 at 7:30:40 PM
For people unfamiliar, generally speaking in trial courts the jury is the finder of facts and the judge is the finder of law (yes, there are bench trials where the judge does both). As an aside, appeals courts deal in legal issues (ie statutory interpretations and constitutional issues).So not being within the statute of limitations is typically a legal issue so what must've happened here is the jury would've been asked if the earlier OpenAI-MS deals were substantially similar to the latest deal. I can't find the verdict form or the jury instructions but I'll bet that was the key issue the jury decided.
by jmyeet
5/18/2026 at 10:53:06 PM
That fact here was if Musk should have known about the potential breach of charitable trust before 2021 given it started in 2019, if not before, with Microsoft investment and he didn't sue until 2024. There is a 3 year statute of limitations.by snark42
5/19/2026 at 9:15:09 AM
Don't forget rich people spend their lives suing for the sake of annoying each other.More often than not the sentences are irrelevant, it's known that it's a lost cause, and they will still proceed if it can bring any dirt or bad publicity or annoyance to the counter party.
by epolanski
5/18/2026 at 6:24:39 PM
>Musk could have brought the same lawsuit in 2019 or 2021, meaning his claims were untimely for the 3 year statute of limitations.Why is a hypothetical ground for this decision? "You didn't complain immediately the first time you got robbed, therefore all the robbing since then is covered by a statute of limitation".
by Arodex
5/18/2026 at 6:29:53 PM
The statute of limitations exists to prevent unreasonable delay, to protect defendants from prejudice due to loss of evidence to the passage of time, and to recognize that people who are injured tend to complain immediately and not sit on their claims.This case demonstrates why. Musk only complained after OpenAI was commercially successful with ChatGPT and after he started a competing effort. He repeatedly said “I do not know” and “I do not recall” on the stand, and argued that the passage of time made it hard for him to remember facts that would have been helpful for OpenAI.
by granzymes
5/18/2026 at 6:33:26 PM
I know why statutes of limitation exist. I was wondering why it applied here. Apparently it wasn't completely straightforward, as nine jurors were needed to reach a decision on that point, instead of a single judge or even clerk.by Arodex
5/18/2026 at 6:37:10 PM
Whether the claim accrued before the statute of limitations expired is a question of fact, and is therefore reserved for the fact-finder which in this case was the jury.by granzymes
5/18/2026 at 6:47:37 PM
IMHO, whether (and which) statue of limitations applies is a question of law, whether said time limit has passed is a question of fact. I'd like to read the jury instructions and verdict, but I didn't see a link to them anywhere.I guess there could be a question of fact in a case where the statues of limitation differ for different injuries, and the factual question is which injury was it.
by toast0
5/18/2026 at 7:01:18 PM
You are correct that which statute of limitations applies is a question of law. If facts are undisputed, that is the end of the issue. In this case, the facts were disputed, and the jury found for the defendants.The jury instructions are public and the final jury form will be published, likely later this week.
I can tell you that the instructions told the jury to decide whether Musk could have brought his case before 2021.
by granzymes
5/18/2026 at 7:07:58 PM
[flagged]by peterfirefly
5/18/2026 at 7:35:16 PM
No, that is incorrect.by mrhottakes
5/18/2026 at 6:54:23 PM
It seems to me like justice should be about right vs wrong and illegal vs legal, and not “did you fill out form 27B/6 on time?” Dismissing a case on these kinds of trivial procedural grounds seems like the court just doesn’t want to do its job.by ryandrake
5/18/2026 at 9:38:36 PM
Have you ever gotten into a fender bender and not had insurance involved? After resolving that situation, do you think it would be "justice" for the person you got into the fender bender with to come after you 20 years after the fact demanding compensation for 20 years of medical bills that they swear is related to injuries sustained in that horrific crash that you negligently caused? How would you even begin to construct a defense for yourself? Even assuming you still had the car, what is the likelihood it's in the same condition it was after that collision? How likely is it that you have a perfect 20 years of maintenance and repair records for that car? How likely is it that you have any evidence about what medications or substances you were or were not taking 20 years ago? How likely is it you could find any witnesses to the wreck from 20 years ago?At a certain point, "justice" is deciding that it is impossible to fairly and reasonably adjudicate the dispute in question, and that it is better to have let a guilty person go free than to punish an innocent person. Statutes of limitation are one part of that package of procedures we have in place to make the process as fair and equitable as possible.
by tpmoney
5/18/2026 at 6:57:54 PM
The statute of limitations is not a trivial issue. Defendants have rights just as much as plaintiffs do, and our justice system does not allow plaintiffs to unreasonably delay in bringing their claims.by granzymes
5/18/2026 at 8:49:50 PM
there are also practical concerns at play with a statute of limitations, where evidence is more likely to disappear and the trial would've devolved into a he said/she said situation.by bobthepanda
5/18/2026 at 7:37:56 PM
If it was wrong in 2019, why did he wait 7 years to do something about it?The passage of time makes it harder to have a fair trial, as shown by the number of times Elon said I don't know or I don't recall about conversations that would have been recent in 2019 but are now long (or strategically) forgotten.
by dbt00
5/18/2026 at 8:03:46 PM
Why would you try to sue something that has no chance of being alive?by dzhiurgis
5/18/2026 at 7:36:25 PM
Bringing claims promptly so they can be adjudicated is vital for justice. What would you think if you were sued for something that happened decades ago when the time to correct it was soon after the instigating event?by mrhottakes
5/18/2026 at 8:57:53 PM
So you’d be OK if, say, a rental car sued you for putative damage to a car you rented 15 years ago?Limiting time that an action can be brought is critical to having a fair trial.
by brookst
5/18/2026 at 11:50:25 PM
Because civil cases are based on the preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, plaintiffs have a much lower bar to clear for winning. However, because of the ease that they may win, there needs to be protections for defendants to ensure that it's fair. If you show up with yellowed documents claiming the defendant did something yet the defendant has, reasonably, lost the records that could disprove the claim, why should the plaintiff have the advantage? If the only thing you need to win an ancient lawsuit is to just hold onto records longer than the other guy, that's not an effective system.by wildzzz
5/18/2026 at 7:08:58 PM
It doesn't seem trivial at all. Allowing to flout procedure specially in case of very rich , powerful people with vast resources at their disposal would feel rewarding further for their cluelessness as if they are not already heavily rewarded by rigged system.by geodel
5/18/2026 at 9:09:07 PM
How do you imagine justice functioning in a system that lacks a statute of limitations?by danso
5/18/2026 at 8:13:45 PM
I for one am happy that we have and enforce statutes of limitations. Calling it a kind of "trivial procedural grounds" is wild.> the court just doesn’t want to do its job.
What do you think its job is.
by albedoa
5/18/2026 at 7:34:51 PM
In the US, court clerks do not decide cases. This was a jury trial, so the jury was required to do its job.by mrhottakes
5/18/2026 at 6:35:25 PM
Because there has to be some point. It's unjust to allow someone to sue 30 years later, as everyone would have a sword of Damocles hanging over their head waiting for the right moment to strike. And in general, if you didn't realize you were robbed for 3 years, perhaps it's the case that you weren't actually robbed.by kstrauser
5/18/2026 at 6:39:28 PM
So if I exchange your Rolex with a fake one and then you try to sell after 3 years and you notice it’s fake, it’s fine for you?by skeptic_ai
5/18/2026 at 6:41:32 PM
The statute of limitations takes into account when the plaintiff discovered or with reasonable diligence should have discovered their injury.In this case, the jury found that Musk knew or should have known of his alleged injury prior to 2021.
by granzymes
5/18/2026 at 9:28:33 PM
Statute of limitations kicks in at the moment of your awareness of the watch being fake. But, you and the plaintiff might dispute over the fact of when you learned the watch was fake. That’s exactly what this jury decision was about. Musk claimed he wasn’t aware of OpenAI’s for profit push until 2022. Altman claimed he was aware of it as far back as 2017 or 2019. The Jury looked at texts and emails and interviewed witnesses and decided that Musk was aware of it in 2019, which is more than 3 years before he filed the suit in 2024.by rprend
5/18/2026 at 6:49:42 PM
There is the notion of equitable estoppel, that would *perhaps*, depending on the facts, apply which stops a defendant, who for instance concealed or committed certain acts of fraud, from raising the statute of limitations defense.Edit: to augment the sibling comment.
by eftychis
5/18/2026 at 6:28:54 PM
There are multiple reasons why statutes of limitations exist, one of them being that the further away in time, the harder it is to prove evidence. Witnesses may have died, or their memory may be more faulty.by chipsrafferty
5/18/2026 at 6:33:10 PM
Also criminal liability is generally handled differently. Some jurisdictions have no limit, and where the limits exist for criminal liability, limitations on serious crimes can be much longer than the civil ones.by hnfong
5/18/2026 at 7:19:13 PM
https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/05/16/musk-v-altman-week-3... has a good explanation of the legalities:"If the jury determines that at any time before those dates, Musk either knew — or had or should have known — that he had a claim that he could bring, then his suit was brought too late. The consequence of being too late is swift and absolute. If the lawsuit was filed late for a particular claim, that claim is out of the case; if it was too late for all of Musk’s claims, the lawsuit is over."
That's where the question of fact (i.e., the requirement for a jury decision) came in: "What was the statute of limitations?" is a question of law, but "When should Musk have known that OpenAI was moving too much toward for-profit?" is a question of fact (and, here, determines whether the statute of limitations applies).
by joshkel
5/18/2026 at 6:44:57 PM
This is not a robbery, though. Not in the "break in and steal stuff from your house multiple times" situation. Legally, each of those are separate events, and one doesn't really affect the other unless it's all the same person, and the repetition is used to get a stronger case, etc.by hn_acc1
5/18/2026 at 7:44:21 PM
There are several legal principles in play here. Note that these are civil trial issues and when you're talking about "robbing", you're likely talking about a criminal issue. These are:1. Estoppel. If a party relies on your conduct then you can lose the right to sue over it;
2. Laches. This is a defense against prejudicial conduct, typically by waiting too long to take action;
3. Waiver. Your conduct can waive your right to sue. Imagine you live with someone and they don't pay half of the rent so you cover it. At some point your continued conduct means you lose the right to sue; and
4. The statute of limitations. Some claims simply have to be brought within a certain period. How this applies can be really complex. For example, we saw this in Trump's fraud convictions in New York. His time in office, away from the jurisdiction, essentially suspended the statute of limitations.
Some crimes like murder have no statute of limitations. Others have unreasonably short statutes of limitations. For example, probably nobody can be charged in relation to sex trafficking in the Epstein saga because the statute of limitations is often 5 years with such crimes. This is unreasonable (IMHO) because often the victims are children and unable to make a criminal complaint.
It's also worth adding that not all legal systems have such wide-ranging statutes of limitation as the US does. Founding principles of those other legal systems is that the government shouldn't be arbitrarily restricted for prosecuting criminal conduct. The US system ostensibly favors "timely" prosecution.
by jmyeet
5/19/2026 at 9:35:52 AM
> the victims are children and unable to make a criminal complaint.I thought that children at any age can complain to the police. The filing side on the criminal case is "State" -- or "People", or "Rex/Regina" (and not the person complaining, regardless of the age.)
by maratc
5/18/2026 at 6:51:46 PM
thanks for the snippetby john_builds
5/18/2026 at 9:47:52 PM
There sure was a lot of days of testimony on Sam Altman lying, for this to come down to " statute of limitations".Shouldn't the defense have raised the statute of limitations much earlier?
by FrustratedMonky
5/19/2026 at 12:16:54 AM
You raise all your defenses in the trial, you only get one. If they'd wanted to put all their eggs on the statute of limitations point then they could, but you can understand why defense lawyers generally don't do that.by lmm
5/18/2026 at 10:17:50 PM
Agree. If this is a precondition, why force people to share their diaries and stuff? Is it all to claim they hid material things that would have led to an earlier filing?by SilverElfin
5/18/2026 at 11:00:34 PM
From other comments, it came down to when Musk could reasonably be judged as aware of the injury.by AlexCoventry
5/18/2026 at 7:41:46 PM
If it's thrown out on a technicality then Musk got fleeced by his lawyers - good for them.by bflesch