zlacker

>>g-mork+(OP)
> "The only logical solution therefore is to transport these resource-intensive efforts to a location with vast power and space. I mean, space is called 'space' for a reason. [crying laughing emoji]"

This is all the reasoning provided. It is quite sad how a company I admired so much has become embroiled in financial doohickery.

>>mmoust+q6
It’s not SpaceX’s fault. It’s still a company to admire, it’s just that nobody appears to be able to stop Musk.

I wonder why SpaceX investors aren’t revolting.

>>stingr+c01
I wonder why the SpaceX top management is going along with this. It's clearly not in their long term interest to do so.

>>jacque+1y1
From what I understand, Musk owns 42% of the company and nearly 80% of the voting rights, so I guess that answers the question.

I guess this is the price you pay for buying shares with less voting rights.